THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.960 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 02.11.2001 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur in C.F.R.No.4171 of 2001. The brief facts are that the complainant-Beeram Venkateswarlu purchased the property in S.No.327 of Proddatur Village in the name of his wife- Beeram Ramasubbamma and grandson-B.Venkateswara Reddy nominating himself as guardian, on 04.09.2000 from Vempally Uma Maheswary-A.5, who is the wife of V.Ramasubba Reddy-A.6 and got registered the same. He also purchased property under registered sale deed dated 06.11.2000 from A.1 to A.4 for Rs.88,0000/-. The transaction covered by sale deed dated 04.09.2000 is for Rs.1,00,500/- . The complainant took possession of the sites purchased under the said two sale deeds and raised foundation wall upto 5½ feet. While so, the police of III Town Police Station, Proddatur called him to police station and asked him to stop construction, as the postal authorities have filed a complaint stating that the said site belongs to them. Later, he came to know that there is a title dispute between the postal authorities and A.5 to A.8, who purchased the site from A.1 to A.4, and suppressing the same, the accused sold away the said property to him. Hence, he filed the above said complaint against A.1 to A.10 for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The Court below, having recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, came to the conclusion that the transaction between the parties appear to be civil in nature, and accordingly, dismissed the complaint by invoking the powers under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision case. Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below ought not have dismissed the complaint holding that the said transaction is civil in nature. He also submitted that it is a clear case attracting the offences aforementioned since the accused with an dishonest intention cheated the complainant and sold the property by creating link documents. He further stated that the Court below ought to have issued process and the dismissal of the complaint is unwarranted. Having perused the order impugned in this revision and considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court is of the view that the entire transaction between the parties appear to be civil in nature, and therefore, it is not proper for the Criminal Court to take cognizance of the offence and conduct trial, as if the accused are criminally liable. Since the entire transaction is civil in nature, the appropriate remedy for the complainant is that he has to approach the Civil Court but not by way of filing a complaint of this nature before the Criminal Court. Therefore, I see no illegality in the impugned order and this revision cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 22.07.2010 va