THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5156 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Maganti Mohan Bujji, S/o.Late Satyanarayana … Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5156 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. in Crime No.137 of 2009 of Eluru - III Town Police Station, West Gdavari District. Crux of the allegation in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate, which complaint was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is that the petitioner/accused falsely represented that there were no mortgages on the property which was agreed to be sold by the accused to the 2nd respondent under sale agreement dated 31.12.2006 and made the 2nd respondent to enter into the agreement by parting with Rs.10,00,000/- out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- and that subsequently, the 2nd respondent came to know that the property was encumbered by way of mortgage in favour of National Trust Housing Finance Limited and the said mortgage is still subsisting as it was not redeemed. No doubt, prior to filing of O.S.No.306 of 2008 by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner in the District Court, Ranga Reddy District for specific performance of the said agreement for sale, there was exchange of notices between the parties, in which the petitioner flatly denied execution of the agreement for sale dated 31.12.2006 in respect of the property. But, truth or otherwise of the agreement for sale, is a question of fact which this Court cannot go into and decide in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court where the suit for specific performance is pending and for the Investigating Officer after collection of the entire evidence during investigation. But, the agreement specifically reads that the petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent to the effect that there are no encumbrances on the property and that there are no mortgages or Court attachments or prior sales in respect of the said property. The petitioner’s counsel does not dispute existence of mortgage on the property with National Trust Housing Finance Limited. It is contended that the said fact was disclosed in the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner itself. The agreement dated 31.12.2006 does not read that the registered sale deed for the property standing in the name of the petitioner was handed over to the 2nd respondent at the time of execution of the agreement for sale. The question of handing over original title deed to the intending purchaser under the agreement for sale may not arise. Such handing over takes place only at the time of registration of sale deed and not at the time of agreement for sale. 2. It is further contended that the property is located in Ranga Reddy District and the suit for specific performance was filed in the District Court, Ranga Reddy District and that therefore, the Police at Eluru have no territorial jurisdiction to register the case and to investigate the same. The disputed agreement for sale reads that the 2nd respondent is a resident of Eluru and that the agreement in question was executed by the petitioner at Eluru. Therefore, when the alleged deceptive representation is made at Eluru while executing the agreement for sale in which the said statement was incorporated, it cannot be said that the Eluru Police has no territorial jurisdiction to register the case. I do not find any valid or legal grounds to quash FIR in this case at its threshold. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 03.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5156 of 2009 DATED: 03.03.2011 ysk