HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7543 of 2007 Date: 22-04-2010 Between: A. Naga rojamani and others ……….. Petitioner and The State of A.P. and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 7543 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.S.R.No.7132 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioners are A-3 to A-6. The second respondent herein is the complainant. She filed the complaint alleging that the petitioners herein and A-1 and A-2 are the builders and they had taken up development of flats and that she had agreed to purchase the flat bearing No.302-A on third floor of the said complex and entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners and A-1 and A-2 on 09-08- 2006 for a total consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and has paid the earnest sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- on three occasions i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- on 09-08-2006, Rs.1,50,000/- on 21-08-2006 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 24-11-2006 and that after the expiry of the agreed period, she learnt that the petitioners along with A-1 and A-2 had already sold the said flat to one Teja Nimmagadda under a registered sale deed bearing DOC No.3085/2005 in September, 2005 and registered the same in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadapally. Thus her case is that the petitioners herein have cheated her and committed the breach of trust in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy. The matter has been referred to the police and the police registered the same as Crime No.305 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that A-1 is the firm, A-2 is the managing partner of the firm and that A-3 to A-6 are the relatives of A-2 and that it is A-3, who is alleged to have entered into an agreement with the second respondent, and that the other petitioners have nothing to do with the same. The matter appears to be at the premature stage. Unless the matter has been investigated into and all the documents have been verified, the disputed questions as to who are the parties to the agreement with the second respondent and to whom the amounts have been paid by the second respondent cannot be ascertained. Since the matter is at premature stage this Court cannot ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made either by the second respondent or by the petitioners. I find no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 22-04-2010 YCR