THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.556 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for purchase of a plot of 2200 square yards situated at Khanajiguda Revenue Village, Malkajigiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on 05.03.2007. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is said to have been given as advance. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent, on 17.09.2009, alleging that the petitioner misrepresented the facts and committed fraud on him, by stating that the plot is free from third party claims, or rights of the Government, and in the verification, it emerged that the entire land is owned by the Government and that it does not have any layout. F.I.R.No.498 of 2009 was registered, against the petitioner, under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner challenges the same and prays to set aside the F.I.R. The petitioner contends that the land is held by him, and after due verification, the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement. According to the petitioner, even if there is any defect in title, it would give rise to a civil dispute and there are no ingredients of a crime under Section 420 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. According to him, the petitioner made a specific representation to him about the title over the land, and several facts, which have a direct bearing on the property, were concealed from him. Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement, in respect of an item of movable property. As in the case of any other agreement, the petitioner did proclaim that the property is free from encumbrances and third party claims. He has also indemnified the 2nd respondent from such claims. The only allegation made against the petitioner, in the complaint, is that the subsequent verification disclosed that the Government has claim over the land and that it is not part of any layout. Even if these two allegations are taken as true, it would, at the most, lead to a civil dispute, or for invoking the indemnity clause contained in the agreement. Things would have been different altogether, had the transaction been resulted in a sale, after execution of the sale deed. Since the transaction is at the stage of agreement, either party has discretion to walk out of it, duly insisting on recognition of their rights. Therefore, it cannot be said that the crime, referable to Section 420 I.P.C. is, at least, prima facie, made out against the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. is set aside. It is left open to the 2nd respondent to work out his remedies in a Civil Court, in relation to the agreement, dated 05.03.2007. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03.03.2010. GJ