THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6557 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner is the sixth accused in Cr.No.55 of 2010 on the file of Station House Officer, P.S. Chandanagar Cyberabad registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 423, 471, 468 and 120-B of IPC. 2 The case of the complainant i.e. second respondent herein is that the second respondent and his partner Mr.P. Radha Krishna Murthy purchased land in an extent ofAc.0.09 guntas in Sy.No.73/E of Chandanagar village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District in the name of their partnership firm i.e. M/s. Sai Maruthi Constructions through agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.1411/2005 dated 07.02.2005 from accused 1 to 5 in the said case. When the complainant went to the said land and made preparations to level the said land the petitioner herein obstructed him as he has registered sale deed bearing document No.10260/2006 dated 22.2.2006 in his favour to an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.73/E of Chandanagar. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the accused 1 to 5 and the petitioner have conspired to cheat him and his partner and executed the said sale deed in favour of the petitioner and in pursuance of the said sale deed the petitioner wrongfully trespassed into the property to occupy the land and thereby all the accused cheated him to a tune of Rs.2 lakhs. 3 Though notices are served on the second respondent the same are returned with an endorsement ‘not claimed’. In those circumstances, it is deemed that the notices are served on the second respondent. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 From a perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, this court is of the view that the entire transaction between the parties is purely civil in nature and the said aspect has to be decided by a competent civil court. In fact, the remedy for the second respondent in a case of this nature is to file a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale and get a decree. From the averments of the complaint it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed the alleged offences. In those circumstances this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that continuance of the said proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. 6 Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.55 of 2010 on the file of Station House Officer, P.S. Chandanagar Cyberabad in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, are hereby quashed. ----------------- Sri T.G.K, J. 18.01.2011 Kvsn