IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8849 of 2009 DATE: 31.10.2011 Between: Maddala Mahesh Kumar …… Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8849 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation of the case is pending. The petitioner seeks quashing of F.I.R in this case. There is no dispute that the complainant is original owner of the property in dispute. Both the complainant and the accused are known parties to each other. They had previous money transactions also. It is alleged that when the accused came forward to purchase the property, the complainant agreed for the same and that sale consideration was fixed at Rs.30,00,000/- and that the accused paid Rs.15,00,000/- and promised to pay balance of Rs.15,00,000/- in about 15 days after execution of the sale deed and obtained registered sale deed from the 2nd respondent in his favour and thereafter failed to pay the same and committed breach of contract in order to make wrongful gain for himself and wrongful loss to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is stated to have lodged a report with Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally for not realising the sale deed dated 02.09.2009. It is further alleged that on 07.09.2009 the accused along with 10 to 15 anti-social elements came upon house of the 2nd respondent quarrelled and intimidated and threatened her to finish her family in case she pursues with the Sub-registrar and approaches the police. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the registered sale deed executed by the 2nd respondent recites payment of total consideration of Rs.17,60,000/- by the accused to the 2nd respondent and that it falsifies the 2nd respondent’s allegations. The 2nd respondent does not dispute execution and registration of the said sale deed with the said allegation. She only contends that the agreed sale consideration was Rs.30,00,000/- and that the petitioner paid Rs.15,00,000/- and on his promise only she executed the sale deed with those allegations. It is a question of fact whether the agreed sale consideration was Rs.30,00,000/- and whether the petitioner paid only Rs.15,00,000/- out of Rs.30,00,000/- and not Rs.17,60,000/- as recited in the sale deed. The fact that the 2nd respondent did not take any civil proceedings against the petitioner in this regard may not be a ground against the 2nd respondent’s case. Irrespective of truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint, the allegations do disclose ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. It is for the investigating officer to come to the conclusion about truth or otherwise thereof after collection of the entire evidence during investigation. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the investigation at its threshold. 3) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 31, 2011 ksh