THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No. 120 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 03.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir in C.F.No.5449 of 2004 in Cr. No.69 of 2004 of Bhongir (T) Police Station, Nalgonda District, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to permit the complainant company to prosecute the case against the accused and to issue summons to them by taking cognizance of offence was dismissed after filing of the final report by the Police as “mistake of law”. 2. The facts in brief are that the accused was appointed as Director of the complainant company. He was entrusted with the work of negotiating with the land owners. He obtained General Power of Attorney from the land owners. He executed some registered sale deeds of the property in favour of the complainant company. Thereafter, he resigned and ceased to be the Director of the company. 3. That thereafter, the accused is alleged to have executed three sale deeds on 6.1.2004 in respect of the same property bearing Survey Nos. 624,625 and 629 in favour of A2 and A3 which was already sold in favour of the complainant company. 4. Therefore, the complainant company preferred a private complaint against accused before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir (T) Police Station for investigation and report. 5. That the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhongir town filed final report treating the case as “mistake of law” since his investigation did not elicit the guilt of the accused. 6. Thereafter, the complainant company filed a petition under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code against the final report protesting that the accused was guilty of the offence; that the investigating officer was hand in glove with the accused and as such he closed the case stating that it is a “mistake of law” and that the prosecution closed the case in spite of there being voluminous evidence available on record and as such prayed the court for permission to prosecute the case against the accused and issuance of summons to them by taking cognizance of the offence by reopening the case. 7. In the above circumstances, the trial court came to the conclusion that the facts pleaded in the protest petition as well as in the complaint were not established prima facie against the accused in view of the final report submitted by the Police, since the accused as a Director of the complainant company only negotiated as a mediator between the land owners and the complainant company and the same did not result in his personal gain since the value of the property was not converted in his favour. 8. The operative portion of the final report reads as under: “The investigation disclosed hat the alleged accused Gopal Naidu was director of Narne Estate Pvt. Ltd. He was negotiating land dealings with the pattadars and executed sale deeds in favour of company. His resignation from the company is also dispatched because the company directors and chairman have resolved and accepted his resignation. On 28.11.2000, once again the company chairman has appointed the said Gopal Naidu as director and he is empowered to prosecute the suit in O.S.No.20/96 further a civil suit in O.S.No.9/04 is also pending in Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhongir. It is fact that the said alleged accused has executed double sale deeds in favour of the company and other accused. Further complainant has mentioned names of alleged accused who received the sale deeds in next time. The question of cheating of company is not arising, because company is not losers, only alleged accused (not Gopal Naidu) are losers. As above facts the case of cheating is not made out. In this regard case will be referred as Mistake of Law.” 9. A perusal of the final report submitted by the Police reveals that the alleged transaction of double registration by the accused in collusion with A2 and A3 may be proved in a civil court since the matter is still pending before the civil court. 10. In the facts and circumstances, as stated hereinabove and also having regard to the fact that it is a civil mater which is stated to be pending before the civil court, the court below cannot be found fault with since the impugned order dated 3.1.2005 passed in C.F.No. 5449 of 2004 in Cr. No.69 of 2004 does not appear to be erroneous and as such it does not require interference from this revisional court. 11. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-06-2010 Stp