THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9359 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 120-B I.P.C. A2 is father of A1. A1 was running Internet Café by name Sai Home Net at H.No.6-3-668/9, 1st Floor, B Block, Kranthi Sikhara Apartments, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. When A2 proposed for sale of Internet Café being run by A1, the 1st respondent/de facto complainant purchased the same for Rs.1,00,000/-. In the said Internet Café, there were fourteen computers, tables, chairs, printer and cabins. Towards value of the said Internet Café, the complainant gave cheque for RS.1,00,000 /- in favour of A1 and it was encashed. The said transaction took place in November, 2006. It is alleged that at the time of the said transaction, the accused informed the complainant that they were owners of the premises also and agreed to let out the same to the complainant on monthly rent of Rs.8,500/- and that inspite of demands, the accused dragged on entering into a rent agreement with regard to the premisis. It is alleged that in January 2007, both the accused along with unsocial elements came to Internet Café and forcibly took over the premisis and that the unsocial elements threatened the complainant with dire consequences and claimed that they were owners of the Internet Café. Therefore, the de facto complainant wanted return of Rs.1,00,000/- from the accused. Even from the allegations in the complaint which was filed before the Magistrate and which was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the original owner of the premisis is K.Swapna Latha, who leased out the premisis to A1 from 01.12.2004 to 30.11.2007 and the original owner wanted vacation of the premisis after lease period. Even if the accused agreed to permit the complainant to continue the business in that premisis on rent of Rs.8,500/-, the complainant becomes only a sub- lessee under the accused. The original owner has got every right to evict the tenant as well as the sub-tenant from the premises. The complaint in the lower Court was filed by the 1st respondent on 14.09.2009, after two years 8 months of the alleged dispossession of the 1st respondent from the premisis by the owner. On consideration of the entire facts of the case in detail, I am of the opinion that even if the allegations are taken on their face value, they disclose a cause of action, which is of civil nature. 2. Placing reliance on INDIAN OIL CORPN. Vs. NEPC INDIA LTD.[1], it is contended by the 1st respondent’s Legal Aid Counsel that even though the facts denote breach of contract between the parties, the Court has to see whether there is any element of criminality in this case i.e. whether there was dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception of the contract. There is no dishonest intention at all in this case because, after receiving Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque, the accused delivered the Internet Café to the 1st respondent. If owner of the premises took possession of the property subsequently, the 1st respondent cannot have any cause of action against the petitioners. It is not the 1st respondent’s case that the petitioners took away computers, etc. in the premisis also. It is evident that the private complaint was filed by the 1st respondent with a view to settle civil disputes between the parties and it is an abuse of process of criminal law. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.1080 of 2009 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:02.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9359 of 2009 Dt:02.11.2011 ysk [1] (2006)3 Spreme Court Cases (Cri) 188