HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.10768 of 2010 Date: November 9, 2011 Between: Thotakura Varalakshmi, W/o.Marraju and others … Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … Respondents Order: This petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1972, is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.62 of 2010 on the file of Ganapavaram Town Police Station, West Godavari District. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint before the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate against the petitioners hereiin; which was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On such reference, the aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent has filed the aforesaid complaint with the following allegations. Petitioners 1 to 3 herein have jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from him on 16.09.2008 by executing a demand promissory note, assuring to pay back the said amount with 24 per cent interest per annum. They assured to pay the money within a period of one year and they have also entered into an agreement on the same date, i.e. 16.09.2008, as per which they agreed to discharge the promissory note within a period of one year, i.e. on or before 15.09.2009, with the agreed rate of interest, failing which, to sell the property admeasuring 60 sq. yards in R.S.No.314/19 situated at Pippara village, Ganapavaram Mandal. They have not repaid the amount within the time stipulated and when he requested them to execute a sale deed in his favour, they did not comply the same; as such he has filed O.S.No.27 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem seeking specific performance of agreement of the sale and the same is pending consideration. When such suit is pending, petitioners 1 to 3, who are the borrowers of money from him, with active collusion of petitioners 4 and 5 herein, have executed a sale deed on 16.12.2004 in favour of the 6th petitioner. Though petitioners 1 to 3 know about the agreement of the sale and pendency of the suit, they have executed a sham sale deed in favour of the 6th petitioner herein and thus cheated him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the dispute between the 2nd respondent-complainant and the petitioners is essentially a civil dispute and if the contents of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent- complainant are taken into account, they do not constitute any offences as alleged. It is further submitted that, to settle the scores of the civil dispute, 2nd respondent- complainant has filed the complaint only to harass the petitioners and if any investigation is permitted on such false complaint, the same will be an abuse of process of Court; therefore the crime registered against the petitioners is fit to be quashed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that petitioners 1 to 3, having executed an agreement of sale on 15.09.2008 and knowing fully well that the suit-O.S.No.23 of 2010 is pending, have cheated the 2nd respondent by executing a sale deed in favour of the 6th petitioner. It is further submitted no sale consideration was paid by the 6th petitioner and only to defeat the rights of the 2nd respondent, sale deed is executed on 16.12.2009 in favour of the 6th petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully perused the contents of the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-complainant before the learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate. A bare reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein would go to show that the same do not constitute any offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. It is to be seen that the dispute between the 2nd respondent and the petitioners is purely of civil nature and the 2nd respondent has filed suit-O.S.No.27 of 2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same is pending. It appears, the complaint in question is filed by the 2nd respondent only to pressurize the petitioners by alleging cheating and forgery against them. Though petitioners 1 to 3 herein have not executed a sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into by them with the 2nd respondent as alleged; in the absence of any prohibitory order against them, they have sold the subject property to the 5th petitioner herein; thus the same will not constitute the offences as alleged, i.e. cheating and forgery. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am fully in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein is essentially a civil dispute and if the proceedings are allowed to go on, the same will be abuse of process of the Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings in Cr.No.62 of 2010 on the file of Ganapavaram Town Police Station, West Godavari District are fit to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed. Criminal petition is allowed. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 9, 2011 MRR