THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2075 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in F.I.R.No.118 of 2009 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners herein/A1 and A2 are husband and wife and they are family friends to respondent No.2 and his wife/complainants. It is alleged in the complaint that A1 and A2 are doing Real Estate business. A1 and A2 through A3 in the year 1999, made the complainants to believe that by investing certain amounts in the said business the accused would purchase plots and agricultural lands in the name of all and by selling those lands they would get huge profits. Having faith, respect and confidence on A1 to A3, the complainants used to pay huge amounts to A1 towards hand loans and A1 used to repay the said amounts to the complainants. While the matter stood thus, A1 to A3 informed the complainants that the transaction of paying and receiving the amounts with profit is not good and that they would purchase the lands in the name of the complainants with the amounts paid by them. Subsequently, the complainants and A1 to A3 used to share the amounts procured on the said transaction in equal shares i.e., 50% to the complainants and 50% to A1 to A3 jointly. The complainants used to pay the amounts to A1 to A3 from their savings and by borrowing from their relatives and friends. Taking advantage of the innocence and lack of knowledge of the complainants in Real Estate Business, A1 purchased some lands in his name, instead of jointly in the name of complainants, and the same were sold to third parties. A1 to A3 did not pay even a single rupee to the complainants. Similarly, A1 also purchased lands, admeasuring Ac.10-32 guntas in Survey Nos.388, 523 and 524 situated at Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in the name of M/s. Sri Kamala Spring Fields Private Limited, represented by him as its Managing Director and A2 as Director; developed and sold them to third parties. Similarly, A1 also purchased several extents of lands from various persons in his name. Therefore, the accused played fraud with the complainants by not paying the profit amounts to them and also when the complainants demanded to transfer money to the vendors of plots through the account of A3, the accused also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. The complaint was referred to the police for investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not make out a prima facie case of cheating and misappropriation of certain amounts entrusted; that transaction between respondent No.2 and his wife/complainants and the petitioners herein/A1 and A2, and A3 are purely civil in nature; that therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that certain amounts have been given to the petitioners for the purpose of purchasing lands in the name of respondent No.2 and his wife/complainants and the petitioners/A1 and A2; that the profits have to be shared equally i.e., 50% to respondent No.2 and his wife and 50% to the petitioners and A3; that instead of purchasing the lands in the name of respondent No.2 and wife, petitioner No.1 purchased the land in the name of M/s. Sri Kamala Spring Fields Private Limited, represented by him as its Managing Director; that therefore, the petitioners and A3 cheated respondent No.2 and his wife; that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice to give effect to the order passed under the Code. If the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of cheating or misuse of entrustment of property, then only question of quashing the complaint arises. 6. At this stage, the truth or otherwise, of the allegations cannot be tested or weighed. The allegation is that the profits have to be distributed in equal shares i.e., 50% to respondent No.2 and his wife/complainants and 50% to the petitioners/A1 & A2, and A3 and the lands have to be purchased in the name of all. Instead of that, petitioner No.1 purchased the lands in his name and sold them to third parties. Similarly, it is the case of respondent No.2 and his wife that they have given certain amounts to the petitioners for the purpose of purchasing the lands in the name of all. So, there had been a prima facie case of entrustment of certain amounts to the petitioners and A3. Instead of purchasing the lands in the name of all the persons, the petitioners and A3 purchased the lands in their name and thereby cheated respondent No.2 and his wife. In view of the fact that prima facie case of cheating and misappropriation of monies entrusted is made out against the petitioners, the question of quashing the complaint against the petitioners/A1 and A2 does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 26, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2075 OF 2009 Between: Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2075 OF 2009 August 26, 2010