THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6895 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.40 of 2007 pending on the file of the Court of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 420 r/w 120(b) r/w 34 I.P.C and issued process. Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the entire complaint allegations show that an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the petitioners as per oral agreement of sale entered between them on 18.09.2004 for purchase of the share of the property of the petitioners and that the complainant also filed O.S.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, against the petitioners for specific performance of oral agreement of sale dated 18.09.2004 in respect of the property in question. He further contended that since the dispute is civil in nature, where the petitioners have not honoured the commitment, if any, on receipt of the amount, the same cannot be converted into a criminal case. He further contended that the complaint allegations do not constitute any offence as per illustrations 1 to 5 mentioned by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[1]. Therefore, continuing the proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. In the complaint it is clearly stated by the de facto complainant that herself and the accused (petitioners herein), who are wife and husband, are the family friends and that herself and the first accused jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in Survey No.225/1 under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.1985. They have also purchased an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in Survey No.225/2 situated in Rajahmundry Rural under sale deed dated 07.06.1985. Subsequently, the second accused moved from place to place on transfers and ultimately, settled at Bangalore. The accused contacted the husband of the complainant and informed him that since they are settled at Bangalore and they are in requirement of money, they proposed to sell away the share of the first accused in the above said property and requested him to purchase the same, as the complainant is already having half share in the said property. The complainant and her husband agreed to buy the property for Rs.26,00,000/-, after negotiations, and paid the entire sale consideration to the accused on different dates. When the complainant and her husband requested the accused to execute the sale deed in their favour, the accused were postponing the issue on one pretext or the other. In spite of repeated requests and reminders, the accused refused to execute the sale deed. The complainant realised that the accused right from the inception had no intention to honour the commitment and only with an intention to cheat and commit criminal breach of trust of the monies belonging to her, the accused conspired together, made false promises and received Rs.26,00,000/- from time to time and ultimately cheated her. The complainant is an income tax assessee and the amounts paid by her clearly reflected in her accounts. When the said complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police, the police, after due investigation, examined as many as three witnesses, recorded their statements and filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. On filing such charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the same and issued process. It is well settled that mere pendency of the suit between the parties cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, and when specific allegations are made against the petitioners in the complaint, the complainant should be given an opportunity to prove the same (See Sri Krishna Agencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009 (1) SCC 69) and Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi (2007 (12) SCC 369). When the complaint allegations clearly go to show that the petitioners with a dishonest intention lured the complainant, received the sale consideration, and failed to execute the sale deed, the complainant should be given an opportunity to prove her case. In view of the same, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2010 va [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604