HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.P.No.6440 of 2009 ORDER: 1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Crime No.134 of 2009, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, on the file of the Karkahana Police Station, Secunderabad. 2 The petitioners herein are A-1 to A-7 and the 1st respondent herein is the de facto complainant in the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 3 The prosecution version is as follows: T h e de facto complainant is a registered society under AP Societies Registration Act bearing Registration No.406 of 2008. The object of the society is the welfare of its members and to protect their interest. A-1-Company invited applications from the de facto complainant-society during the year 1987 for the sale of plots in East City Sector I to V and also for East City extension. A-1 offered the plots at Rs.120/- per sq. yd., which comes to Rs.30,000/- per 250 sq. yds of plot. Concession was given for paying the money one time. Some extra rate was fixed for corner plots etc. It is further stated that the company advertised for the sale of the plots promising to provide very good amenities like Thar Roads, place for school, Play ground etc. It is also stated that A-2 who is a retired colonel used his reputation as a person from the defence with discipline by which defence personnel purchased plots there. Further, Rs.150 per sq. yard was collected as development charges. For part of the sites, Gram Panchayat approval was not taken. However, though the approval was not there, the plots were registered. Even though long time elapsed the ventures were not completed and the time is being extended by A-1 from year to year for the completion of the amenities promised by it. Further, A-1 by its letter dated 10.07.2007 informed all the owners of the plots that the development charges skyrocketed to Rs.450/- per sq. yads. and requested the members to pay the difference at Rs.150/- per sq. yard. It is also stated that A.1 is claiming penal interest on delayed payments and also additional development and maintenance charges. It is further stated that once the plot is registered the company is not entitled to claim any additional charges. So the claim of A-1 company to pay the maintenance charges at Rs.1200/- per year is not tenable as the venture is not fully completed. It also amounts to malafide method, adopted to enrich them self at the cost of the plot owners. 4 Based on the said allegations, complaint was filed before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, which in-turn was referred to the police concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The police registered it as Cr.No.134 of 2009 on the file of Karkahana police station, Secundeabad under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 5 It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no such offences were committed by A.1 to A.7 and if at all there is any liability against them, it is only civil liability with regard to the deficiencies of service and therefore, it is a fit case to be quashed. 6 There is no representation on behalf of the de facto complainant. 7 The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings impugned? 8 As there is only a question of demanding to pay additional amount for developmental charges and maintenance charges failing which, to pay penal charges, I am of the opinion that there is no criminal liability whereas there is only civil liability, which does not warrant the prosecution of the accused. 9 For the aforesaid reasoning, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.134 of 2009, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, on the file of Karkahana Police Station, Secunderabad are hereby quashed. ------------------------------------------- G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. 30.12.2011 Kvsn