THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 11460 of 2010 Order: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/A3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 329 of 2010 of Ongole Taluk Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner herein is A3 in the above said crime. The second respondent herein is the de facto complainant whose complaint has been forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The case of the second respondent, in brief, is as follows. The second respondent and husband of the petitioner herein late Ramaiah are brothers. They were working as Government Teachers and members of Prakasam District Teachers Co-operative House Building Society Limited. The second respondent purchased house site in Plot No.91 and the husband of the petitioner purchased Plot No.90 in Survey No. 191/1 and 2 of Mukthinuthalapadu village and they obtained respective sale deeds on 06.02.1982 and the said two plots are situated adjacent to each other. The case of the second respondent is that the husband of the petitioner executed a registered settlement deed dated 04.07.1986 in his favour in respect of Plot No.90 and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the same. The husband of the petitioner herein died in the year 2000. The petitioner herein and her son executed a sale deed in respect of Plot No.90 in favour of one Kolla Narasimha Rao on 16.08.2005. Then the second respondent herein, after issuing a legal notice, filed a suit in O.S. No. 1000 of 2006 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 16.08.2005 is null and void. The petitioner herein and other defendants in the said suit were remained ex parte and said suit was decreed on 07.11.2007 as prayed for. Subsequently, the other defendants filed I.A. No. 60 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte decree, but the said IA was dismissed on 19.07.2010. The further allegation of the second respondent is that the petitioner herein and her son again entered into a sale transaction on 21.06.2010 with regard to Plot No.90 in spite of the decree passed against them in O.S. No.1000 of 2006. Then the petitioner herein approached the municipal authorities to mutate her name and that one Kolla Chandra Sekhar, being the GPA holder of his brother Kolla Narasimha Rao, executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein at the instigation of Kolla Subba Rao (A1). Learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 submits that the husband of the petitioner late Ramaiah had purchased Plot No.90 and it is unbelievable and against the human conduct to say that leaving his wife and children he had executed a settlement deed in respect of said property in favour of his brother the second respondent herein. It is also his contention that the petitioner herein had taken a specific plea in O.S. No. 1000 of 2006 that the said settlement deed dated 04.07.1986 is a forged one and must have been pressed into service by impersonation. His next submission is that since the dispute is of civil nature, criminal proceedings are not maintainable and even otherwise continuing the proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment and till the rights of the parties have been finally determined by the Civil Court, the question of attracting Section 420 IPC does not arise. Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that Plot No.90 is the self acquired property of late Ramaiah and he had every right to execute a settlement deed and that the settlement deed was executed on 04.07.1986 and it was not challenged during the life time of Ramaiah i.e., for about 14 years and now for the first time the plea of forgery and impersonation has been taken. It is also his submission that the decree obtained by the second respondent in O.S. No.1000 of 2006 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, has become final, though the application filed by the petitioner herein to set aside the same is still pending. It is also his submission that the petitioner herein has not filed any suit to set aside the settlement deed dated 04.07.1986 as null and void and till such declaration is made, the settlement deed dated 04.07.1986 is to be treated as valid and binding and therefore the acts of the petitioner in obtaining a sale deed on 21.06.2010 even after the decree in O.S. No.1000 of 2006 and her subsequent acts of approaching the municipal authorities amount to cheating. It is also his submission that the matter is under investigation and, therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the proceedings against the petitioner have to be quashed. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein had taken a specific stand in O.S. No.1000 of 2006 that the settlement deed dated 04.07.1986 is a forged one and might have been pressed into service by impersonation and his further submission that in all probabilities the husband of the petitioner might have not executed the said settlement deed, that too leaving his wife and minor children in favour of his brother the second respondent herein, and having regard to the fact that an application has been filed to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S. No.1000 of 2006, it appears that there exists a civil dispute between the parties and it cannot be said that the matter has been finally decided by the Civil Court. Though the fact remains that the settlement deed dated 04.07.1986 is not set aside by any competent Court and is deemed to be in force, but still the acts of the petitioner such as agitating her right or approaching the municipal authorities to mutate the property in her name or paying tax in her name or seeking re-conveyance of the property by a sale transaction dated 21.06.2010 cannot be treated as an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. Thus, whether the claim of the petitioner is genuine or not cannot be decided in these proceedings. The same certainly cannot attract the ingredients of Section 420 IPC by any stretch of imagination. Since there appears to be a civil dispute between the parties and the rights of the parties have to be finally decided by a competent Civil Court, I am of the considered view that unless and until the rights have been finally determined, it cannot be said that a case under Section 420 IPC has been made out, and the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 alone are quashed. _______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17.11.2011 Nsr