HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.2397 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in Cr.No.58 of 2009 of Miyapur PS, Cyberabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State. None appeared for the first respondent-complainant. Perused the record. 3. A private complaint filed by the first respondent before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and on receipt of the same, Miyapur Police registered it as Cr.No.58 of 2009 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 323 and 506 IPC. According to the complainant, she entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners on 07.03.2007 for purchase of Plot No.100, in Sy.No.224, admeasuring 450 sq. yards in Block-I of Miyapur village, for a total consideration of Rs.60,75,000/- and the complainant paid an advance of Rs.12 lakhs. The complainant alleges that inspite of repeated requests, the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 evaded to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed and ultimately, refused to register the sale deed and on 25.01.2009 when the complainant questioned the petitioners-accused, they refused to return even the advance amount and also stated that they have already sold away the property to others and criminally intimidated the complainant by abusing her in filthy language and has pounced on the complainant, pushed her aside and the same was witnessed by the persons present there. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that under the agreement as per the condition No.2, the property had to be registered within 45 days and as the complainant failed to pay the balance sale price within time, the petitioners-accused have sold the plot to M/s Shubham Builders under an agreement of sale cum GPA on 28.07.2008. He further contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the ingredients of the offence under section 420 IPC are not attracted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in ‘Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma & others v. State of Bihar & another[1]’, wherein the apex Court held that ‘mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating unless it is established that the accused entertained fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise’. 6. He also relied upon the decision in ‘Ram Biraji Devi & another v. Umesh Kumar Singh & another[2]’, wherein also under similar circumstances it was held that ‘taking cognizance in the absence of any prima-facie case attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence was an abuse of process of Court’. 7. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that the only grievance of the complainant is that inspite of repeated requests, the petitioners-accused failed to receive the balance sale price and to execute the registered sale deed and ultimately they refused saying that they have already sold the plot to some others. It is not the allegation of the complainant that the petitioners- accused have entertained any fraudulent or dishonest intention even at the time of entering into the agreement with her. Going by the averments of the complaint, it appears to be a dispute of civil nature and the complainant blaming the petitioners-accused for their alleged failure to receive the balance sale price and in not executing the sale deed and the petitioners on the other hand refusing to perform their part of the contract. It is also not the case of the complainant that she gave any notice to the petitioners demanding specific performance of the agreement of sale or that she filed any suit in that regard. Be that as it may, the averments in the complaint would not attract the ingredients of the alleged offence under section 415 IPC punishable under section 420 IPC. 8. However, insofar as the alleged offence under sections 323 and 506 IPC are concerned, specific averments have been made in the complaint to the effect that when the complainant along with her colleague went to the site and questioned the petitioners about their refusal to register the sale deed, she was physically assaulted and criminally intimidated. The said allegations require to be investigated into so as to find the truth or otherwise thereof. 9. In the circumstances, it is considered that the FIR insofar as it relates to the offence under section 420 IPC is held liable to be quashed invoking the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, it is quashed. But however, the investigation shall go on insofar as the other offences i.e., under sections 323 and 506 IPC are concerned and the FIR is not liable to be quashed regarding the said offences in exercise of the inherent powers of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of as stated above. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.09.2011 bss [1] 2000(1) ALD (Crl.) 848 (SC) [2] 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 150 (SC)