HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.13016 OF 2010 Dated: 21-12-2011 Between: K. Indravathamma w/o. K.Jayarama Raju and others … Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through P.S. I Town, Anantapur and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.13016 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.357 of 2010 of P.S. I-Town, Anantapur, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 423 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The aforesaid crime is registered on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent Company under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur. In the said complaint, it is alleged that all the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent Company and requested to take the land admeasuring Ac.114.00 gts., in Survey No.1979, situated in Pollopalli Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District, on lease for a period of 20 years. As they expressed that they were in need of money in view of the pathetic health condition of the 2nd petitioner, the 1st petitioner executed a lease deed on 05-08-2009 in favour of the 2nd respondent-Company and petitioners 2 to 4 have attested the said deed. It is alleged that the 1st petitioner has received a sum of Rs.50,000/- and executed a receipt for such amount. In the complaint, it is further alleged that in view of the lease obtained by the 2nd respondent-Company, it has invested Rs.12,00,000/- for excavation of iron ore etc., but, on 26-02- 2010, one Mr.Chappadi Subbareddy of Rajampet and Purushottam of Shankarapuram Village, along with their group, came to the leased property and shown an agreement alleged to have been executed by the petitioners and also attachment orders obtained by them with regard to the very same land in I.A.No.1530 of 2008 in O.S.No.148 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. On the aforesaid allegations, it is complained that the petitioners have criminally conspired and deceived the 2nd respondent-Company, suppressing the earlier agreement and the Court orders. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent – Company. 4. In this criminal petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that even if the contents of the complaint are looked into, no case is made out for investigation for the offences under Sections 420, 423 and 34 of IPC. It is submitted that the orders obtained by Chappadi Subbareddy in I.A.No.1530 of 2008 are in a suit for recovery of money filed by him against the petitioners, and in the aforesaid suit, the attachment orders obtained by him were subsequently modified on the vacate petition filed by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, though the dispute is essentially of civil in nature, only to harass the petitioners, and in gross abuse of the process of law, the present complaint is filed for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 423 read with 34 of IPC. 5. On the other hand, It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Company that the petitioners have not disclosed the earlier agreements entered into with the said Ch.Subbareddy and others and entered into a fresh lease deed with the 2nd respondent-Company and received Rs.50,000/- towards lease consideration amount. It is submitted that as the 2nd respondent company has invested funds for development of the land, they were cheated by the petitioners, and thus, the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423 read with 34 of IPC. 6. The very complaint is based on the interlocutory order stated to have been passed in I.A.No.1530 of 2008 in O.S.No.148 of 2008 filed by one Ch.Subbareddy. In this case, though there is an allegation of entering into an agreement earlier by the petitioners with the said Ch.Subbareddy and others, it is to be noticed that the suit in O.S.No.148 of 2008 does not pertain to the land in dispute. It is a suit for recovery of money, in which, orders for attachment before judgment were obtained, which were subsequently modified. When the earlier agreement holder Ch. Subbareddy is not agitating for his rights over the lands in question, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offences punishable under Sections 420, 423 read with 34 of IPC. If the 2nd respondent-Company is aggrieved by the orders in I.A.No.1530 of 2008 in O.S.No.140 of 2008, it can also get itself impleaded in the said suit to enforce its rights, which are obtained by way of lease from the petitioners, but it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offence, as alleged by the 2nd respondent-Company. Further, this Court is of the view that even if the contents of the complaint are taken on their face value, they do not constitute any offences punishable under Sections 420, 423 read with 34 of IPC. Therefore, if investigation is allowed to be proceeded with, the same would result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings by allowing this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.357 of 2010 on the file of I-Town P.S., Anantapur, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 423 read with 34 of IPC, are hereby quashed. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 21, 2011. KTL