HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 3745 of 2008 DATED: 28.12.2011 Between: G.Rama Devi and two others Petitioners And State of A.P. and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- Heard Sri K.Srinivas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners herein are A3 to A5 in Cr.No.175 of 2008 of Bowenpally Police Station which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. 3. The case of the de facto complainant is that earlier G.Gopal Reddy, husband of the 1st petitioner and G. Malla Reddy, husband of the 2nd petitioner, who are A1 and A2 in the case executed an agreement of sale dated 07.02.2007 in favour of the de facto complainant and his friend in respect of 630 square yards of land in Sy.No.52 situated in Bowenpally village, and that latter on they expressed some difficulty in executing that agreement and consequently substituted it by a new agreement of sale dated 28.10.2007 agreeing to sale another extent of 305 square yards in Sy.No.52/Part of Bowenpally. 4. The version of the de facto complainant is that even in respect of the second transaction, A1 and A2 did not readily come forward to complete it and on the other hand on 13.10.2007 they created two gift settlement deeds transferring the property in question in favour of the petitioners. The allegation is that in the above manner all the accused i.e. A1 to A5 cheated him even after taking the advance amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that at best the allegations in the charge sheet would show only the offences against A1 and A2 but not these petitioners who are ladies and a boy aged about 18 years. In this connection, it is mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the settlement deeds in question do not cover the property covered by the agreement of sale dated 28.10.2007, but this is disputed by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, and hence it has become a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in this petition. 6. It may be noted that even before executing the agreement of sale dated 28.10.2007, A1 and A2 had earlier executed gift settlement deeds on 13.07.2010. The version of the de facto complainant is that having executed the settlement deeds earlier A1 to A4 cheated them. So far as A1 to A4 are concerned, it cannot be said that allegations made against them do not disclose the offence of cheating. It is seen that A1 to A4, who are adults and grown-up, are mainly held responsible for the de facto complainant for the offence of cheating. 7. So far as the 3rd petitioner, who is the 5th accused in the crime is concerned, he is a boy aged about 18 years and the son of A1 and he is shown as donee in one of the settlement deeds. Having regard to the allegations and the averments made in the F.I.R., I am of the opinion that they do not prima facie disclose any complicity of the 3rd petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, is dismissed, but so far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, it is allowed and the F.I.R. against him alone is quashed. It is also made clear that if during the course of investigation, the police find any complicity of the 5th accused also, it shall be open for them to prosecute him also. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 28.12.2011 bcj