HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO. 3783 OF 2010 Date: 26.04.2010 Between: Rajender Agarwal …..Petitioner And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP And another. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3783 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C in Crime No.64 of 2010 of Karkhana Police Station. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was referred by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2) There is no dispute that the petitioner is a real estate commission agent. It is alleged that the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for purchase of land in S.Nos.9184/08, 3144/08 and 7358/09 belonging to one Dinesh Agarwal and 7 others and asked the 2nd respondent to pay token amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, so that the same will be paid to the land lords and agreement for sale will be obtained from the land lords. According to the 2nd respondent, he paid Rs.12,00,000/- to the petitioner in three instalments and the petitioner passed receipts therefor. But, the petitioner did not obtain consolidated receipt from the land lords for the said amount nor agreement for sale. Therefore, the 2nd respondent realised that he was cheated by the petitioner. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that entire allegations constitute a civil dispute between the parties and that there is no element of criminality in this matter. Neither land proposed to be sold belonged to the petitioner nor the petitioner arranged any meeting between the 2nd respondent and the land lords nor the petitioner paid amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the land lords much less obtained any receipt therefor or agreement for sale from the land lords. Thus, allegations made in the private complaint prima facie disclose the offence for which F.I.R was issued. It is well settled principles of law that even in matters involving civil disputes, the police and the criminal Court can investigate and enquire in case there is any dishonest or fraudulent transaction. I see no merits in this petition. 4) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date: 26.04.2010. KSH