THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.Petition No.4039 of 2008 Date: 18.03.2011 Between: Smt. Atiya Sultana and another … Petitioners/ A.1 & A.2 AND M. Govind and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.4039 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.622 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against them. The first respondent prosecuted the two petitioners, who are the accused A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that prima facie no offence is made out. He further contended that after laying of the complaint by the first respondent, the dispute between the petitioners on the one side and the first respondent on the other side was resolved and that consequently this petition deserves to be allowed. 3. The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner. They owned Ac.1.20 guntas of land in Dharmavaram Village, Nalgonda District. An agreement of sale was entered into between the first respondent on the one side and the petitioners on the other side on 27.09.2006. 4. At the time of agreement of sale, the first respondent paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners received Rs.2,00,000/- more from the first respondent. Thus, the petitioners received Rs.3,50,000/- in all from the first respondent. 5. It is the case of Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners that the prices of immovable property in the locality have gone down so much so the first respondent was not willing to purchase the property from the petitioners at the price at which he initially agreed to purchase the property. It is his further case that instead of trying to resolve the dispute with the petitioners, the first respondent filed a private complaint on 31.03.1997 before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 406, 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. The case was, in fact, registered as Crime No.70 of 2007 and was numbered as C.C.No.622 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a settlement between the petitioners on the one side and the first respondent on the other side on 18.03.2008 that the petitioners shall execute a sale deed in the name of three persons as suggested by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the affidavit engrossed on Rs.10/- non-judicial stamp paper by the first respondent. The contents of the affidavit are that the first respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners in respect of Ac.1.20 guntas of land that the petitioners shall execute a sale deed in the name of the persons mentioned in para-2 of the affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners accordingly executed a sale deed on 18.04.2008. He offered to produce a copy of the sale deed executed by the petitioners. The petitioners as vendors would obviously be not in possession of the original sale deed. The petitioners further contended that through document No.1634 of 2008, the sale deed in respect of the property of Ac.1.20 guntas was executed by the petitioners in favour of the three persons who are the nominees of the first respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners executed the sale deed in accordance with the request of the first respondent, there is no cheating on the part of the petitioners and that where cheating is not made out the offences u/s.406 and 506 IPC which are the offshoots of the main offence of cheating against the petitioners also would not stand. 7. It may be noticed that the petitioners have taken out notice to the first respondent. Notice was served upon the first respondent. The first respondent, however, did not appear before the Court either to affirm or to deny the contentions of the petitioners. In the absence of contradictory contention from the first respondent, I am constrained to agree with the claim of the petitioners. I am forced to assume that the petitioners’ claim is proved, albeit the affidavit filed by the petitioners is not explicit to state that the agreement between the first respondent and the petitioners was in view of the complaint laid by the first respondent against the petitioners. However, where it is the stand of the petitioners that there was a compromise between the petitioners on the one side and the first respondent on the other side and that the petitioners have executed the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the compromise and where the first respondent did not appear and did not deny the claim of the petitioners, I, as already pointed out, am constrained to agree with the contention of the petitioners in this regard. 8. Patently, the offence of cheating punishable u/s.420 IPC is not made out once the petitioners agreed and have executed the sale deed in favour of nominees of the first respondent. I also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences u/s.406 and 506 IPC also would not be made out when the main offence u/s.420 IPC is not made out. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.622 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.622 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are quashed against the petitioners. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 18.03.2011 Isn