THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7292 OF 2007 ORDER: 1 This is a petition filed the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.797 of 2007 on the file of the court of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking to quash the said proceedings taken on file at the instance of the second respondent herein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC. 2 Brief facts are that the first petitioner herein represented by the second petitioner as its Additional Executive Director entered into an agreement of sale on 30.09.2000 with the second respondent herein in respect of 3150 Sq. Yards bearing municipal No.9-1-170, 9-1-170/A, 9-1-176 and 9-1-176/A in Sy.No.51, Road No.39, situated at Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. The second respondent herein had paid certain amounts towards part of sale consideration. It is further stated that the petitioners informed the second respondent that the said property is involved in Court proceedings and after getting clearance they will execute registered sale deed and if for any reason they could not obtain clearance, they will pay back the amount they had taken as advance from the second respondent. The main allegation in the said complaint is that the accused have not even attempted to get permission from the Court, but on the other hand, they entered into sale transaction in respect of the very same property with several others and many of such parties have also filed criminal cases against the petitioners. The second respondent tried to contact the petitioners but the petitioners are avoiding him. Hence the second respondent approached the court below and filed the present complaint, which was taken on file as C.C.No. 797 of 2007. As stated supra, seeking to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. the petitioners approached this court and filed the present petition. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners never had the dishonest intention to cheat and further the entire transaction, if accepted, is purely civil in nature and as such criminal prosecution is not maintainable. In this context he relied upon a decision of the apex Court in V.Y. Jose and another Vs. State of Gujarath and another[1]. 5 On the other hand the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that subsequent to this transaction, the petitioners have entered into agreement of sale with Kapil Chit Funds, Rajmouli and Sons and two more persons in respect of the very same property. 6 It is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, whether the petitioners had any dishonest intention at the threshold i.e. at the time when they entered into the agreement of sale with the second respondent or not has to be looked into. But from para No.6 of the complaint it appears that several persons have filed complaints against the petitioners for the acts of cheating committed by the petitioners and cases are pending before competent courts. When with the same set of allegations complaints have been filed and the petitioners are facing trial, this court is of the view that a different view cannot be taken in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. Whether it is purely civil in nature or not also is a matter to be gone into by the court below in deciding the said issue. 7 Accordingly, I see no merits in this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. -------------- 01.07.2010 Kvsn [1] (2009) 3 SCC 78