THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4891 of 2009 Dated:- 13th October, 2011 Between Syed Khader Basha …Petitioner AND State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4891 of 2009 ORDER:- This petitioner, who is A-4 in FIR No.8 of 2009 on the file of the I Town Police Station, Kadapa, filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the said FIR. 2. The second respondent is the de-fact complainant. He is the owner of the Leyland make lorry bearing registration No.AP-04-V-5684. His allegation is that on 12.09.2008, he agreed to sell the said lorry to one Nagileti Suresh @ Bana Sreenivasulu Reddy and Syed Khader Basha, S/o. Syed Ghafoor Sahab (the petitioner herein) through brokers, viz., (1) Habebulla, S/o. Saheb, Door No.10/146, R/o Ballary Road, Kadapa, (2) Khaja Mir alias Sabbil, S/o. Abdul Aziz, R/o. Door No.9/286, Chilakalabavi Street, Kadapa, for an amount of Rs.10,75,000/- and an advance of Rs.1,20,000/- was received by him on 12.09.2008. Sriram Finance Corporation had financed him to purchase the said lorry and he was paying monthly instalments to it and still 29 intalments were remaining to be paid. Thus, a total amount of Rs.7,46,098/- was to be paid to Sriram Finance Corporation. The purchasers have agreed to pay the balance instalments to said Sriram Finance Corporation and they have agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,05,000/- to the de-facto complainant on or before 12.10.2008. Both of them entered into a written agreement and the lorry was handed over to the purchasers on the same day. The de-facto complainant alleges that the said purchasers did not pay the instalments to Sriram Finance Corporation within the stipulated period and when the financiers informed him about the same on 03.10.2008, he enquired as per the address given by those persons and to his utter surprise, he found that there is no person by name N.Suresh, whose name is shown as purchaser in the agreement and his enquiry further revealed that N.Suresh’s original name is Bana Sreenivasulu Reddy. Then, he enquired about the second purchaser – Syed Khader Basha (the petitioner herein) at Door No.7/2, Chilakalabhavi Street, Kadapa, i.e., the address in the agreement and it was found that the petitioner is not residing in the given address and that he shifted his family to House No.18-110, B.R. Street, Opp. Shivareddy, Jammalamadugu Taluk, Kadapa District. Then the de-facto complainant proceeded to Jammalamadugu on 03.10.2008 and enquired at the said address and when he enquired with the family members of the petitioner, he learnt that the petitioner is residing at Hyderabad and he is a Government employee. The allegation of the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner himself entered into agreement with him in the name of his friend/partner – N.Suresh. His main allegation is that since beginning, the purchasers intended to deceive him and gave all false information. It is also alleged that from the date of said agreement, he could not find the lorry or the purchasers anywhere. It is also alleged that whenever he is contacting the cell number furnished by the petitioner, the petitioner is not lifting the phone. Basing on the same, the police, I Town, Kadapa, registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2009 under Section 420 IPC. 3. Along with this petition, the petitioner filed copy of the agreement. Of course, the copy of the agreement shows that one N.Suresh is the purchaser of the said lorry and the petitioner seems to have signed only as an attestor. Basing on this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only an attestor to the agreement and he has nothing to do with the purchase or sale of the lorry. 4. The only point that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the FIR No.8 of 2009 registered against the petitioner has to be quashed? 5. It is settled law that while considering the quash petitions, the allegations made by the de-facto complainant in the FIR alone have to be taken into consideration. If a charge-sheet has to be considered, the allegations made in the charge-sheet have to be taken into consideration. No documents filed by the petitioner/accused can be looked into at this stage. The settled legal principle is that whether in a case, the allegations made in the FIR, though accepted as true, did not make out a case against the accused, then only the proceedings can be quashed. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the charge-sheet cannot be gone into at this stage. The probability of securing conviction also cannot be verified at this stage. Whether the petitioner was only an attestor or he himself is the real owner of the lorry or whether he, along with others, have cheated the de-facto complainant or not, all these aspects have to be gone into by the investigating officer or by the trial Court. On a plain reading of the FIR, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the alleged offices have not been made out. I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 13th October, 2011 Bvv