HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.491 OF 2009 DATED.09-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 (For short, ‘A-2’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.404 of 2008 pending on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District registered for offences punishable under sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioner is A-2, the first respondent is the complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : A-1 in the case is the husband of A-2 in the case. They know the complainant for many years. Having got such acquaintance with him, A-1 and A-2 approached the complainant in the month of February, 2001 for a hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, which the complainant obliged and arranged first installment loan of Rs.50,000/- on getting executed a n unregistered simple mortgage deed on 30-03-2001 vide document No.2716 of 2001 in respect of a flat bearing No.5, I Floor, admeasuring 700 Sq. ft. with undivided share of 30 Sq. yards or 25.08 Sq. Mts out of total extent of 614 Sq. yards in plot Nos.6 & 7 in Sy. Nos.65/1A, 65/1AA, 65/1E & 65/1EE in a building complex known as ‘Jamuna Castle’ situated at Ravindranagar Colony, Habsiguda, Uppal Kalan Municipality, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, in the month of April, 2001, A-1 and A-2 further approached the complainant, who in turn arranged second installment loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under the deed. Thus, under the unregistered mortgage deed dated 06-04-2001 in respect of the above mentioned flat, A-1 and A-2 obtained a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as hand loan from the complainant under the document. They also promised to repay the same together with interest as and when demanded. Subsequently, when the complainant requested them to repay the loan amount together with interest, they dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. At that juncture, A-1 and A-2 along with others entered into a Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with a builder and the said person in turn changed the building name and renamed it as ‘Prime Castle’ and clandestinely entered into a sale transaction with one B.H. Praveen Kumar Naidu and executed registered sale deed vide document No.1857/2003, dated 06-02-2007 for the property. Thus, A-1 and A-2 conspired together in connivance with the builder and others and not only deceived the complainant but also the purchaser B.H. Praveen Kumar Naidu and have not discharged the loan amount obtained from the complainant leave aside the question of payment of interest and hence A-1 and A-2 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for A-2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 that he (A-2) got nothing to do with the sale of the property and the sale of the property was done only by the builder of the property and as such there is no prima-facie case against A-2. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State has opposed the petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 8. It is pertinent to note here that there is clear allegation to the effect that A-1 and A-2 in the case obtained the loan from the complainant by mortgaging the property and subsequently they along with others entered into a Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with the builder, fraudulently, by reason of which, the builder could sell the property to third person and as such A-1 and A-2 committed the alleged offences. Further, if A-1 and A-2 were not the owners of the property, there was no question of mortgaging the property in favour of the complainant. If they did so, without having any rights over the property, it also amounts to committing fraud against the complainant. It is also pertinent to note here that according to the complainant, the loan amount was also not paid. The circumstances show that A-1 and A-2 together with the builder did the mischief. So, there is prima-facie case against A-2 for conducting necessary prosecution in respect of the charges leveled and as such I do not find any reasons to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the matter on merits without being uninfluenced by any of the observations made above. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.491 OF 2009 December, 09, 2011 DSH