THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5565 of 2008 Dated:09.07.2010 Between: K.Pavan. ...Petitioner And The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5565 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.53 of 2008 under Sections 420, 423, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed a private complaint on the file of the Court of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The learned Magistrate endorsed the same to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. P.S.Maredpally registered the crime. The sum and substance of the complaint of respondent Nos.2 and 3 – husband and wife, is as follows. Accused No.1 was owner of various extents of lands bearing No.3-6-169 in survey No.169/1 etc. Accused No.2 is her son in whose favour accused No.1 executed a gift deed. They entered into development agreement with accused No.3, which is a real estate company. Accused No.4 is the Managing Director of accused No.3. As part of the property development, accused No.3 constructed row houses. The complainants purchased row house bearing No.3-6-158/5 for a sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-. After completion of the construction, the house was delivered in July 2002. At that stage, the complainants came to know that accused No.1 had executed gift deed and that accused No.2 in turn created equitable mortgage to secure the loan obtained by accused No.5 from M/s.Prudential Co-Operative Bank Limited. Therefore, they contend that accused Nos.1 to 5 conspired together and by their common intention deceived the complainants by criminal conspiracy. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations made in the complaint on the face of it are taken to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner/accused No.5. After perusing the complaint, this Court finds force in the submission. Furthermore, the petitioner herein has already discharged the loan to M/s.Prudential Co- Operative Bank Limited as per the receipt dated 20.10.2007 issued by M/s.Prudential Co-Operative Bank Limited, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, to the effect that entire loan of Rs.16,50,000/- has been repaid by the petitioner. If accused No.2 who is a donee under the gift deed executed by mother has created equitable mortgage to secure the loan obtained by the petitioner from M/s.Prudential Co-Operative Bank Limited, the same does not fall within the ambit of cheating or conspiracy. There is not even an allegation in the complaint that the petitioner herein was aware of the development agreement between accused No.1 on one hand and accused No.2 on the other hand. In that view of the matter if criminal investigation is allowed to continue against the petitioner/accused No.5, it would result in miscarriage of justice. In the result, the First Information Report No.53 of 2008 of P.S.Maredpally insofar as accused No.5 is concerned (petitioner herein) is quashed. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.07.2010 vs