THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2981 OF 2007 DATED: 09-07-2010 Between S.Venkateswarlu and another …Petitioners And 1.State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another …Respondents-Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2981 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings in FIR No.55 of 2007 on the file of the II Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 368, 406, 420 and 423 r/w 34 IPC. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that 1st petitioner is the son of one Subba Rao and 2nd petitioner is the son-in-law of the 1st petitioner. Maternal grand father of Subba Rao, had properties and during his life time, he executed a registered will, dated 29-03-1950 in favour of the Subba Rao and his wife Satyavathi. As per the said will, the property that was given in favour of Satyavathi has to be utilized for the benefit of complainant’s mother and other sisters and thus, the complainant is also having right over the property. Taking absence of the mother of the complainant and sisters of the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner who is the custodian of old mother created some documents against the will of late Subba Rao. The 1st petitioner with the active support of 2nd petitioner chalked a plan by taking advantage of insanity of his mother to grab her property, sold away the said property on 10-03-2006 to accused No.3 and received consideration. All the accused conspired together to get wrongful gain wrongfully concealed Satyavathi who is abducted by 1st and second accused and dishonestly obtained the sale deed by cheating without her knowledge and consent. A1 also executed a sale deed in respect of his share, which itself proves malafide intention of all the accused in grabbing the property of Satyavathi. Hence, the complaint. 3. If the allegations in the complaint do not make out prima facie case of the offences alleged, then complaint needs to be quashed. Reproducing the words as mentioned in the Section cannot be taken to conclude that prima facie case of the offences made out against the accused. The allegations, if taken as true and correct, at this stage, give rise to a civil dispute, because certain properties said to have been allegedly bequeathed to the mother of the complainant were not given to the complainant. There is no allegation that Satyavati was forcibly taken away by the accused against her will so as to come within the meaning of abduction. Similarly, with regard to Criminal Breach of Trust, there is no allegation that any property was entrusted to the accused and that property was misappropriated or converted into own use contrary to the agreement. Similarly, there is no allegation of cheating because there was no dishonest intention and misappropriation of property. Similarly, there is no allegation that the accused with fraudulent intention sold away the property of the complainant causing wrongful loss to him. Therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the FIR No.55 of 2007 on the file of II Town Police Station, Rajahmundry. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:09-07-2010 Hsd