THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.500 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Cr.No.1 of 2009 on the file of G.Sigadam Police Station, Srikakulam district registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner is A1 and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the above crime. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the above crime. The defacto complainant filed private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam and it was forwarded to the G.Sigadam P.S. on the basis of which, the case was registered in Cr.No.1 of 2009 for the said offences. The prosecution case is that A1 being the owner of Ac.8-58 cents in Survey No.240 of S.Bheemavaram village entered into an agreement of sale with the second respondent, who was one of the tenants of the property and immediately A1 delivered the property to the defacto complainant, but subsequently on 7.4.1997 A1 executed a sham and nominal sale deed in favour of the father of A2 to A4 under Document No.752/99 with the intention of defeating the rights of the defacto complainant. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 that as the family members of the defacto complainant were interfering with the property in question, A1 filed suit O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam and obtained interim injunction and pending disposal of the suit, the defacto complainant and his family members violated the injunction orders by entering into the land and therefore, A1 filed the private complaint before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, which was forwarded to the G.Sigadam P.S. for necessary registration and investigation and further on 29.11.2008 the defacto complainant and his family members again entered into the property and cut the paddy crop existing there, following which A1 filed another private complaint before the same Court. No representation has been made on behalf of the defacto complainant. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the allegations made are enquired into and the question of criminal liability against A1 is to be decided and at this stage, the merits of the case cannot be decided. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings. Pertinently, A1 filed the said suit for injunction and his claim is that the agreement of sale claimed by the defacto complainant is not true and correct and the defacto complainant being the tenant of the property was in the possession of the property only. When A1 to A4 dispute the genuineness of the sale deed, the same is to be established to be true and correct. Even supposing that it is a true and genuine document, then it has to be considered, the question of specific performance of the agreement of sale by examining various aspects and principles enunciated in that context. Further, there is no evidence as to filing any suit, the question of specific performance of the agreement of sale by the defacto complainant. Unless all those formalities are completed, it cannot be said that criminal liability has been fastened to A1 to A4 consequently, whereas the question of relevant factors including the question of readiness on the part of both the parties to perform the contract cannot be decided in the criminal case. Therefore, it appears that the matter is purely civil in nature and therefore the proceedings in the criminal case are not tenable. A1 being the owner of the property got right to sell the property, but if the agreement of sale is true, valid and enforceable, he cannot have any right or authority to sell the same and even the subsequent purchaser is governed by the agreement of sale. For the reasons discussed above, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in the criminal case are quashed as prayed for. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 26-12-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.500 of 2009 26.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.500 of 2009 Date: 26th December, 2011 Between: Suddala Rama Rao .. Petitioner/A1 And The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents