IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7724 of 2009 Between: Anumula Sai Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy .. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.105 of 2009 of Maddur Police Station, Warangal District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. K. Vijaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and of Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Ms. K. Vijaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is facing prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.105 of 2009 of Maddur Police Station, Warangal District on the allegation that the petitioner, after executing an agreement of sale in favour of the second respondent on 31-10-1993 and delivering possession of the property sold to the second respondent, subsequently mortgaged the same land to State Bank of India, Malkajgiri Branch for availing a loan. The second respondent claimed that six witnesses cited by him in the complaint also stood on the same footing in respect of their respective plots of land. The second respondent, therefore, alleged that the petitioner cheated the second respondent and six others. The petitioner is referring to O.S.No.16 of 2008 filed by him before Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit land and decree of the same and claimed that he only gave the land to the second respondent and others on crop share basis in the year 2000 and that as the second respondent and his family members refused to give such share to the petitioner for Rabi season since 2007, he was forced to file O.S.No.16 of 2008. Thus, while the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land in question, which is in possession of the second respondent and his family members only for cultivation on crop share basis, the second respondent and his six witnesses claimed to have purchased the respective extents of land under agreements of sale and to be in possession as such purchasers. If the agreements of sale are true and the delivery of possession to the second respondent and others by the petitioner is correct, there is, prima facie, material to allege committal of an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner. If, on the other hand, the claims of the petitioner are true, the culpability of the petitioner may not be capable of being proved. It is true that an ex parte decree appeared to have been passed in O.S.No.16 of 2008, but it is equally true that an application to condone the delay in fling the petition to set aside the ex parte decree at the instance of the second respondent and others is also pending. Mere pendency of civil proceedings does not result in any automatic exclusion of criminal liability or lead to any consequential unsustainability of the criminal proceedings. As the allegations of the second respondent and the denials of the petitioner involved disputed questions of fact and as this Court cannot conduct any deep probe into such disputed questions of fact in this restricted and summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this petition cannot be entertained. The inherent jurisdiction is available only in the rarest of rare cases to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. Therefore, the statutory investigating agency has to be allowed to investigate into the crime unhindered by any interim intervention by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2009 Ksn