HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6114 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused (For short, ‘The Accused’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.198 of 2008, pending on the file of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District, registered for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Accused, the Respondent No.2 is the De-facto complainant in the F.I.R. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the F.I.R. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The De-facto complainant and the Accused along with three others entered into an earlier agreement dated 10-06-2000 (In short, ‘the first agreement’) with the Property Association of Baptist Churches (In short, ‘PABC’) Limited Company, represented by its President for purchase of land in survey Nos.87, 88 and 89 to an extent of Ac.11-00 guntas commonly known as A.B.M. Compound at Jangaon totally for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) and the de-facto complainant in pursuance of the agreement paid his share of Rs.12,50,000/- to the Accused. Subsequently, the Accused entered into another agreement dated 08-05-2003 (In short, ‘the second agreement’) with the PABC, without the knowledge and consent of the de-facto complainant and suppressing the first agreement of sale. The de-facto complainant coming to know about the highhanded act of the Accused about it, questioned the Accused, then the Accused promised that he would put the de-facto complainant into the physical possession of his share of land as covered by the first agreement and he also gave a letter to the Circle Inspector of Police, Jangaon, stating that he would settle the dispute with the de-facto complainant. But ultimately failed to put the de-facto complainant into the physical possession of his share of land and cheated him. Hence, the Accused is liable to be punished for the alleged offence. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Accused that the second agreement was executed only in continuation of the first agreement for the benefit of the de-facto complainant and as such Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by him to the de-facto complainant and three others and in fact, the de-facto complainant is not the actual beneficiary and he was only a third party to the first agreement being only a guarantor and in addition to that the agreement dated 10-06- 2000 is not an agreement of sale and it is only a compromise agreement and hence he has no locus standi to file the case against the Accused. 5. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings as prayed? 6. The first agreement reads that the First Party therein recognized the Second Party including the Accused therein as protected tenants and agreed to transfer and handover the land to an extent of Ac.11-00 guntas in survey Nos.87, 88 and 89, excluding an extent of 600 Square yards and 1000 Square yards and the Second Party agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation in the best interest of the First Party for its welfare programme, and also executed four promissory notes worth Rs.25,00,000/- each with a condition that the said amounts covered by the promissory notes had to be cleared within four months of obtaining relevant Pattedar Passbooks from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangaon. The First Party acknowledged the receipt of the said promissory notes. Further the third parties i.e. the de-facto complainant and others accepted and given cheques for Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) each for standing as guarantors for the pronotes given by the second party. Further, if the second and third parties fail to clear the amounts the first party gets right to cancel the proceedings and pattedar passbooks obtained in the name of second party and obtain passbook in his favour taking necessary measures for the property. 7. Further, the so called second agreement which is only a deed of compromise came into existence only due to the non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the first agreement by the Second Party therein. The terms and conditions incorporated in the second deed are as follows : The First Party has agreed to give away an area of 820-00 sq. yards out of Ac.11-20 guntas towards remuneration for the services rendered by the Advocates on record as on the date of that Agreement. The First Party has agreed to use its good office to see that the possession of the said land measuring Ac.11-20 guntas be delivered to the Second Party and receive the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- which was agreed to be paid by the persons said to be the tenants of the property within a period of four months on condition that if the contract is not completed within the stipulated period, the time would be extended with mutual understanding, whereas, the Second Party therein has agreed that the First Party holds no responsibility or liability with regards to the expenditure incurred so far by him (the Second Party) and further the Second Party therein also agreed that they would not touch even a single pie from the money of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to be paid to the First Party. The Second Party further has undertaken that they would not under any circumstances touch or grab the land belonging to one Vallala Sekharaiah of Jangaon Town of Warangal District, who was one of the parties to the first agreement. If the said Vallala Sekharaiah the de-facto complainant does not turn up to take possession of the land claimed by him by paying necessary amounts to the concerned within six months from the date of the second agreement, he would loose his right, interest and whatsoever over the land and the land automatically goes into the possession of the First Party. Further the Second Party agreed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with Canara Bank, Nawabpet Branch now functioning at Jangaon within a period of four months from the date of the second agreement and simultaneously agreed to issue four cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- and Demand Promissory Notes of Rs.25,00,000/- each respectively in favour of the First Party on the date of the second agreement, subject to the jurisdiction of Kavali, Nellore District and in turn, the First Party has agreed to return the cheques and Demand Promissory Notes which were already issued at the time of execution of the first agreement, at the time of depositing the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- into the bank as agreed upon by the Second Party. The First Party has also agreed to solve any standing and impending legal litigations over the said extent of Ac.11-20 guntas covered by Survey Nos.87, 88 and 89 of Jangaon at their costs and see the Second Party enjoys the same peacefully. Consequently, the Second Party has also agreed to face all sorts of standing or impending illegal litigations and acts of threats etc., from any corner of the society or any coercion and any other unwanted things from any person or corner of the society at their own costs and risks. 8. Thus, the contents of the above noted documents clearly provide that the second deed came into existence only in furtherance of the first agreement for the benefit of the tenants, whereas, the de- facto complainant and three others stood as guarantors for the transactions in the first agreement and the de-facto complainant is not at all a beneficiary under the transactions and he is not affected by the second deed which is only a compromise deed and he has no locus standi to give any report to the police in this matter. It is pertinent to note here that if at all anybody is aggrieved by the transactions, it is only the tenants or the PABC but none of them admittedly came forward to give any such report with such allegations against the Accused. It appears that having not appreciated the matter properly or due to some disputes the complaint has been filed. The accused should not be prosecuted without any reasons, which amounts to harassing him so, ultimately the Criminal Petition is to be allowed and the proceedings are to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings in Crime No.198 of 2008, pending on the file of Jangaon Police Station, Warangal District, registered for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 30-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 250 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6114 OF 2008 September, 30 2011 DSH