THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6481 of 2007 Date of Order: 28-10-2010 Between: Kasturi Venkataiah and others ..Petitioners and 1. The State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6481 of 2007 Oral order: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.118 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koduru, which has taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 415 and 420 r/w 109 IPC. The compliant allegations would go to show that A1, who is the owner of Ac.0.05 cts. in Sy.No.569; Ac.1.33 cts. in Sy.No.570 and Ac.0.60 cts. in Sy.No.572 having purchased under a registered sale deed 20-06- 1994, entered into an agreement of sale with the de-facto complainant on 02- 11-1999 agreeing to sell the property at the rate of Rs.3,10,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1 lakh. A1 is the resident of Kodur Village; A2 is the husband of A1; A3 is the son of A1 and A2. A2 and A3 are the attestors of the document along with L.Ws.2 and 3. On payment of entire sale consideration also, A1 has not executed the sale deed and insisted additional amount of Rs.65,000/-. On mediation, the additional amount of Rs.65,000/-was paid and after payment of the same, A1 executed the regular sale deed on 06-05-2000 in favour of complainant only to an extent of Ac.1.30 cts. On the same date, i.e. 06-05-2000, A1 entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant agreeing to sell balance Ac.0.68 cts. in favour of the complainant. While so, A4, who is the daughter of A1 and A2 and wife of A5, filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against A1 on the basis of nominal agreement of sale executed by A1 in her favour for an extent of Ac.0.68 cts. only to defraud the complainant. On coming to know of filing the suit, the complainant questioned A1 about the suit and nominal agreement of sale executed in favour of A4. Then the accused agreed to withdraw the suit filed by A4. Later, the complainant came to know that accused with a mala fide intention executed sale deeds in favour of third parties to cause wrongful loss and cheated him. Therefore, all the accused are liable to be punished for the offence under Sections 415 and 420 r/w 109 IPC. The entire complaint allegations do not show any role played by A2, A3, A5 and A6. Merely because A2 and A3 are husband and son of A1 and attestors of agreement of sale cannot be said to be abetted when A1 executed sale deeds in favour of third parties to defraud the claim of the complainant. No role is attributed to them in execution of sale deeds either to defraud or cheat the complaint. Therefore, A2, A3, A5 and A6 cannot be proceeded for the offence, as the complaint allegations do not indicate their abetment in execution of the agreement. A4, whose name was entered into the agreement of sale and filed the suit said to have abetted cheating by entering into execution of the agreement by A1. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 (A2, A3, A5 and A6) are abuse of process and the same are accordingly quashed and proceedings as against petitioner No.3 (A4) can be continued. Criminal Petition is accordingly partly allowed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 28-10-2010 Murthy