HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4974 of 2011 Dated 14.7.2011 Between: S.Rama Rao. …Petitioner. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4974 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.124 of 2011 of Market, Secunderabad. He filed this petition to quash that F.I.R. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 420 I.P.C. 3. The sum and substance of the accusation made against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that he earlier sold the property under three sale deeds dated 18.11.2009 to the defacto complainant and that subsequently, it turned out that the said property was already mortgaged by the 1st accused in favour of a Bank in question on a loan obtained by him. The defacto complainant says that suppressing this earlier mortgage, the petitioner cheated him and when he questioned the petitioner, the other offences were committed. It may be noted that the allegations certainly disclose the offences of cheating. The matter has to be investigated and in these circumstances, there is no ground to quash this F.I.R. 4. The learned counsel for the for the petitioner however brought to my notice that earlier the petitioner gave complaint in Dundigal Police Station against the present defacto complainant alleging the offences punishable under Sections 406,420,468, 506, 384 read with 511 I.P.C. and that is registered in Cr.No.188 of 2011 of the said police station and the said police investigated into it and the complainant has filed this present case as a counter blast to that. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed another complaint against the defacto complainant and it is registered as Crime No.117 of 2011 of Market Police Station. It may be noted that whether the present complaint given by the defacto complaint is a counter blast to the above two cases and whether it is true or false has to be decided during the course of investigation. In these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in this matter and the relief of quashing F.I.R. is rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is a business man. In the above circumstances, having regard to the fact that two cases already filed by the petitioner are pending, concerned police can keep in view Section 41 of Cr.P.C. before taking a decision about the arrest of this petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is disposed of. _________________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 14.7.2011 *Dvs. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4974 of 2011 Dated 14.7.2011 *Dvs.