THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1411 OF 2009 ORDER: The learned counsel for the petitioner filed proof of sending notice to the 2nd respondent, who is de facto complainant, by registered post. Admit. This petition is filed by the petitioner/A.6 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.57 of 2007 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. A private complaint was said to have been filed alleging that A.1 to A.5 have entered into an agreement of sale on 21.05.1999 with the complainant and received a consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- out of Rs.10,08,900/- and consequently they failed to execute the agreement of sale and in collusion with the petitioner herein the General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement of sale was said to have been entered into and thereby all the accused have committed offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). The matter was referred to the police and the police after due investigation filed charge sheet against six accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the nature of the transaction is purely of a civil nature and on the basis of the alleged agreement of sale a civil suit O.S.No.96 of 2003 is said to have been filed on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, where-under A.1 to A.5 have denied the said agreement, dated 21.05.1999. According to him, the question of A.6 cheating the complainant does not arise because by the date of agreement of sale i.e., on 21.05.1999 the petitioner was not at all in the picture and even if the total allegations of the conduct of A.1 to A.5 and even the subsequent sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney of the petitioner is said to be accepted the offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted. According to him, the fraudulent or deceitful intention shall be at the inception of the agreement, at that time the petitioner is, evidently, not associated with the agreement. Merely because subsequently, the petitioner is having knowledge of the agreement with the complainant and thereafter obtained another agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, it cannot be a case for cheating of the complainant by the petitioner. There may be an offence against A.1 to A.5. So far as the present petitioner is concerned he is said to be a subsequent purchaser and consequently when the agreement of sale does not convey any rights and if at all the complainant is entitled for enforcement of the same, such a contract will be evidently binding on the petitioner, who is the subsequent purchaser, which has to be decided in the civil suit. But, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.57 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam are quashed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:24-11-2011 INL