HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10710 OF 2010 ORDER: This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No.59 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa. A private complaint was filed against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 417 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2. The gist of the allegations is that the 1st accused represented that the Saw Mill and Machinery by name Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill and Depot, situated at Boddam, was said to have been allotted to him by his father i.e., 2nd accused. Thereafter, an agreement of sale was entered into with the complainant for a consideration of Rs.9,80,000/- and an amount of Rs.1,00,001/- was paid and a letter was executed on 18.03.2009. The licence in the name of the 2nd accused is also said to have been handed over to the complainant. It was stated subsequently in spite of repeated demands, the accused persons have been postponing on some pretext or the other to discharge the contractual obligations created under the contract and failed to transfer the licence and also sale of Saw Mill Machinery with equipment and refused to do so on 05.11.2009 and therefore, the private complaint was filed. Evidently, in order to attract the offences under Sections 415 and 417 IPC, there should be misrepresentation or fraud at the inception of the contract and subsequent failure of the obligations under a contract will not create any criminal liability. In this case, evidently, the contract is said to have been bona fidely entered into, and the promise is said to have been made on behalf of the 1st accused and in fact, the complainant is aware that the licence is in the name of the 2nd accused and therefore, there cannot be any case of misrepresentation or fraud at the time when the contract was entered into. If the petitioners/accused persons have committed any fraud when in fact, the 2nd accused also has agreed for the transfer of the property, then the right of the complainant is to institute a suit for specific performance and resorting to criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it cannot be taken as a tool to realise the advance of Rs.1,00,001/-, which was paid to the accused by the complainant. Therefore, from the above narration of he facts in the complaint, it is quite clear it is a case of clear civil dispute between the parties and breach of the contractual obligations and consequently, the criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded with. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.59 OF 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa, are quashed and the complainant is at liberty to proceed according to law on basis of the contract. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:27.07.2011 INL