IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.549 of 2010 Between: M.A.Azeem & others ..... PETITIONERS-ACCUSED AND State of Andhra Pradesh & another ..... RESPONDENTS HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.549 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 3-A.1 to A.3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC in crime No.29 of 2010 of Malkajgiri Police Station of Cyberabad. A.1 is brother of A.2. A.3 is wife of A.2. A.2 is stated to be an Advocate. There is no dispute between the parties that A.2 agreed to sell 580 Sq.Yards of site to the second respondent for a total sum of Rs.1 Crore. Out of the agreed sale consideration, total sum of Rs.18 lakhs was paid in four instalments to A.2 and A.1 on different dates separately. There is no dispute that one R.Ravichander is original owner of the said land. It is alleged that A.1 and A.2 without having any rights in the land approached the second respondent and made the second respondent to believe that they have an agreement for sale-cum-general power of attorney deed in their favour and that they agreed to sell the land to the second respondent for the above said consideration and received the above mentioned Rs.18 lakhs towards part of the sale consideration. Now, the petitioners have come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R. in this case on the ground that a false case is foisted against them with a view to arm-twist the petitioners to enter into compromise or to return the amount of Rs.18 lakhs. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot consider whether the report is true or false as it is a question of fact, which has to be decided during investigation by the investigating officer after collecting evidence, both oral and documentary, from all the parties; and in case the investigating officer charge-sheets any of the accused it is for the trial Court to decide the same after full fledged trial. The petitioners filed copy of agreement for sale dated 01.02.2005 said to have been entered into between R.Ravichander and A.2. It is not a registered document. It is not a sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed, which is stated to have been represented to the second respondent during negotiations at the time of receiving advance sale consideration. Subsequently, it is stated that on 15.10.2009 R.Ravichander is stated to have executed a registered agreement for sale-cum-general power of attorney deed in respect of this land in favour of A.3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that all the payments to the extent of Rs.18 lakhs were acknowledged by the second petitioner in his reply notice dated 18.12.2009. It is his contention that because the second respondent did not fulfill his part of the contract by paying entire balance of sale consideration within the stipulated date and since time was essence of the oral contract between the parties, A.2 had sold away the land to an outsider. Therefore, it is finally contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. Petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on B.Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee (unreported judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1444 of 2007 dated 12.10.2007) in support of his contention. Following observations of the Supreme Court therein are apposit: “We do not, however, mean to lay down a law that the liability of a person cannot be both civil and criminal at the same time.” Thus, simply because certain set of facts denote that it is a civil dispute, it cannot be concluded that there will be no element of criminality in that dispute. Facts of the case have to be looked into from both angles. Existence of a civil dispute cannot rule out criminal dispute between the parties and vice-versa. Such scrutiny has to be made on facts in the present case. It is alleged that without any authority or without any document in favour A.2 or A.1, they induced the second respondent to part with Rs.18 lakhs to them on the misrepresentation that they are having sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed in their favour. As a matter of fact, no sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed is there either in favour of A.1 or in favour of A.2 from R.Ravichander by the date A.2 entered into oral agreement for sale with the 2nd respondent. If there is any such sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney deed in existence, then, it is open to the petitioners to produce the same before the investigating officer, who is investigating this case. The alleged unregistered simple agreement for sale dated 01.02.2005 cannot cure the defect on the part of the accused. It is not known whether that agreement was in existence previously or it was antedated. Thus, facts of this case contain necessary allegations that there is element of cheating on the part of A.1 and A.2 in the beginning before dragging the second respondent into the transaction of sale and before obtaining Rs.18 lakhs from him. Complicity of A.3 with regard to the subject matter is a matter which has to be investigated into by the investigating officer. It has to be seen whether she is also a party to the overall conspiracy among A.1 to A.3. Since A.3 happens to be a lady and is stated to be a housewife, she may not be arrested during investigation of this crime. Thus, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R. in this case. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the investigating officer is directed not to arrest A.3, who is a lady during investigation. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 30th JULY, 2010 SUR