THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5321 of 2010 Date:14th December, 2011 Between: Smt.Sama Vijaya Laxmi W/o.Sama Krishna Reddy & Anr. ..... Petitioners/A1 & A2 AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5321 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A1 Smt.Sama Vijaya Laxmi and A2 Sama Krishna Reddy in Crime No.168 of 2010 of Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad, to quash the proceeding therein against them. 2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners herein fabricated partition deed, dated 14.12.1994, and gift settlement deed, dated 22.11.2007. It is also averred in the complaint that the petitioners knowing fully well that the above referred documents are fabricated, entered into a development agreement with him and induced him to part with an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- and thereby cheated him. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant came to be forwarded by the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the Station House Officer, Saidabad P.S., Hyderabad. Thereupon, the Station House Officer, Saidabad P.S., Hyderabasd, registered a case in Crime No.168 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 r/w.511 IPC and issued FIR. Hence, this Criminal Petition by A1 and A2 in Crime No.168 of 2010 of Saidabad P.S., Hyderabad, with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.06.2010. The 2nd respondent-de facto complainant entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as on the date of the 1st petitioner entering into the development agreement with the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, there were no disputes and that whatever disputes arose between Sama Penta Reddy and the 2nd petitioner were subsequent to the development agreement. A further submission has been made that the said Penta Reddy, who is no other than the brother of the 2nd petitioner, has instituted a civil suit and as the civil Court ceased of the disputes between the parties, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant submits hat the 2nd petitioner is instrumental in fabricating the partition deed, dated 14.12.1994, and gift settlement deed, dated 22.11.2007, in favour of the 1st petitioner and both the petitioners misrepresented to the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant with regard to their possessing absolute title over the property and induced him to part with an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- and therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. As could be seen from the material placed on record, as on the date of the 1st petitioner entering into the development agreement with the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, there were no disputes over the property. It was only after execution of the development agreement, the brother of the 2nd petitioner viz., Sama Penta Reddy raised disputes and he resorted to filing criminal case as well as civil suit. It is also brought to my notice that the civil suit filed by Sama Penta Reddy is pending disposal. It is a matter of record that as on the date of execution of development agreement, dated 16.02.2008, no claim was made by Sama Penta Reddy over the property covered under the development agreement. It was only after the development agreement, the said Penta Reddy raised certain disputes and he filed a suit for declaration of his right over the property and the said suit is pending consideration. Since the civil Court ceased of the matter, in the given facts and circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.168 of 2010 of Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:14th December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.5321 of 2010 Date:14th December, 2011