HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.921 OF 2006 Date: 17.11.2009 Between: Sunke Rajanarsu …..Petitioner And: The State, rep. By PP High Court of AP and 4 others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.921 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed questioning the order dated 26.07.2005 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Criminal Revision Petition No.14 of 2005 by which that Court confirmed the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sulthanabad in C.F.No.132 of 2005. The petitioner is complainant who filed private complaint before the Magistrate against the respondents 1 to 4 showing them as A-1 to A-4. The private complaint was sought to be filed for the offences under Sections 420, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner/complainant, A-1 and A-2 executed an agreement to sell property bearing H.No.2-115 and 2-116 situated at Julapally village to him for Rs.95,000/- and obtained advance of sale consideration to the extent of Rs.20,000/- from him. Subsequently, it is alleged that A-1 and A-2 sold away the same house property to A-4 under registered sale deed. A-3 happened to be scribe of that registered sale deed. Taking all the allegations of the petitioner for granted, it is not known how A-3 and A-4 are roped in this complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. They are not at all liable for any penal liability for which the complaint was lodged. In the complaint, the complainant did not allege that A-1 and A-2 had dishonest intention at the inception of transaction of agreement for sale. In the absence of any allegation in the complaint as well as in sworn statement to that effect, action of A-1 and A-2 in executing a registered sale deed subsequently in favour of A-4 will not attract liability under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Secondly the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is one relating to causing mischief resulting in damage to the tune of Rs.50/- or more. There is no damage to any property or article or amount in this case. A mere reading of allegations in the complaint, it does not attract any ingredients required for making out an offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, not only in sworn statement of the complainant as 1st witness but also in two other sworn statements of witnesses produced by the complainant before the Magistrate, there is no mention about intimidation much less criminal intimidation by any of A-1 to A-4 against the complainant. Thus, allegations in the complaint filed by the complainant before the Magistrate even if taken for granted for the sake of arguments, do not attract any of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying upon Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others V. State of Bihar and another (A.I.R 2000 S.C 2341), Inder Mohan Goswami and another V. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008 (2) A.L.T (Crl) 220) and T. Raghu and another V. D.B. Raveendranath and another (2008 (1) A.L.T (Crl.) 40) of this Court, it is contended by the counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that subject matter of this case is one which is purely of civil nature and that the petitioner intends to convert a civil matter into a criminal case and that it is not permissible under law. On a reading of the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the opinion that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4 is one which is purely of civil nature and that the Criminal Courts have rightly refused to entertain the same. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:17.11.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.P.NO.921 of 2006 Date: 17.11.2009 Gk.