THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1634 of 2009 7th December, 2011 Between :- M/s.Seetha Rama Housing Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director – Viramachineni Ratnakar And others .. Petitioners And State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1634 of 2009 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition has been ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.126 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to quash the proceeding therein. The 2nd respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.126 of 2009. Initially, he presented a complaint before the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein alleging that they made him to part with considerable amount on the promise of executing registered sale deed in respect of Ac.11.06 guntas and subsequently they had gone back on the promise and thereby cheated him. It is also stated in the complaint that petitioners No.2 and 3, who are arrayed as A.2 and A.3, threatened him to leave the possession of the land. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Thereupon, the Station House Oﬃcer, Saifabad P.S., registered a case in Crime No.383 of 2006 and issued F.I.R. After completing the investigation, the S.I. of Police, Saifabad P.S., ﬁled a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. referring the case as Civil in Nature. The 2nd respondent herein – complainant ﬁled Protest Petition and the learned Magistrate took the Protest Petition on ﬁle as Crl.M.P.No.2708 of 2008. On examining the 2nd respondent – Complainant and another witness, the learned Magistrate took the complaint on ﬁle as C.C.No.126 of 2009. Hence, this petition by the petitioners with the prayer stated supra. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Pubic Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent – State and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – Complainant. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not suppressed anything with regard to the existing encumbrance over the property and indeed certain payments allegedly made by the 2nd respondent – complainant are towards discharge of the mortgage deed. A further submission has been made that the 2nd respondent – complainant ﬁled a suit for speciﬁc performance and the said suit is pending adjudication. Since the disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent – Complainant are purely civil in nature, continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.126 of 2009 against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – Complainant submits that the 2nd respondent has been receiving threats from the petitioners – accused and if the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings, there is every likelihood of the petitioners intensifying threats on the 2nd respondent – complainant. I have gone through the Final Report submitted by the Station House Oﬃcer, Saifabad P.S., and also the Protest Petition ﬁled by the 2nd respondent – Complainant. The complaint ﬁled by the 2nd respondent – Complainant indicates that he made certain payments towards discharge of mortgage deed. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the complaint which reads as hereunder:- “It is submitted that, later the petitioner has come to purchase some more lands upon the oﬀer of the above named accused persons and was informed through an Auction Notice published in Eenadu Newspaper that the said entire property title deeds were mortgaged with SFC as such the petitioner questioned the Accused persons of why they suppressed the said facts and later on the request and promise to sale the below mentioned land by the accused, the petitioner paid Rs.9 lacs to SFC vide Cheque Nos.116197 drawn on ICICI Bank, SR Nagar Br., for Rs.4 lacs and 505729 drawn on Andhra Bank, Kukatpally Br, for Rs.5 lacs and Rs.25 lacs to the accused through cheques vide Nos.202864 dated 12-4-06 drawn on Vijaya Bank, K’pally Br. For Rs.5 lacs and Rs.5 lacs vide cheque No.651638 drawn on Andhra Bank, Sangamithra Extention counter, K’pally and was issued separate receipts by the accused vide Receipt No.12827 dated 27-9-2005 for Rs.4 lacs, No.12828 dated 21-12-05 for Rs.15,00,000/- No.12829 dated 21-12-06 for Rs.5 lacs, No.12840 dated 12-5-06 for Rs.5 lacs, No.12841 dated 12- 4-06 for Rs.5 lacs, believing that they would relieve the title and link documents from SFC and register the land existing in Sy.No’s.724 and 725 of Koheda village but the accused after receiving the amounts have shown their real colours and did not register the said lands nor did they hand over the link documents to the earlier registered sale deed.” A reading of the above referred para in the complaint indicates that the 2nd respondent – Complainant knew well of the existing encumbrance over the land which he agreed to purchase and indeed payments have been made to the Bank directly. For non- execution of the registered sale deeds pursuant to the agreement of sale, the 2nd respondent – Complainant has a civil remedy. The 2nd respondent – Complainant had already ﬁled a suit for speciﬁc performance and the same is stated to be pending trial. It is the apprehension of the 2nd respondent – Complainant that if the criminal proceedings are quashed, there is every likelihood of the petitioners intensifying threats on him. In case of any such threats, 2nd respondent – Complainant is always at liberty to approach the concerned authorities. As could be seen from the material placed on record, the disputes between the parties are predominantly civil in nature. Continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.126 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, amounts to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 126 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Interim stay granted on 30-4-2009 shall stand vacated. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 7th December, 2011 smr