THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2738 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “Cr.P.C”) is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6 in C.C.No.271 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. 2. Petitioners herein are A1 to A6 and respondent No.1 herein is the complainant. Complainant is the younger sister of A1. A2 to A6 are the children of A1. It is alleged in the private complaint that the father of complainant acquired immovable properties in Bharathpet and Naidupet areas in Guntur District and died intestate. The properties of the father of complainant are devolved on his wife, two daughters and only son by succession and inheritance as sharer and residuaries by Muslim Personal Law as tenants in common. In spite of the request made by the complainant to A1 to effect partition of the property, A1 has not effected partition and being vexed with the attitude of A1, complainant filed O.S.No.301 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, against A1 to A6, claiming share in the plaint schedule property admeasuring 300 square yards and 145.2 square yards with constructions therewith. A1 having fully aware of the suit pending, sold away 100 square yards out of 300 square yards of the plaint schedule property to A7, by stating before the Joint Sub-registrar that the complainant was already given 95 square yards from the plaint schedule property by concealing the real facts before the registering authority. It is further alleged that A7 having full knowledge about the pending suit, deliberately conspired with A1 to A6 in purchasing the 100 square yards of plaint schedule property. Therefore, A1 to A7 committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, “I.P.C.”) for giving false information to the Joint Sub-Registrar and offences punishable under Sections 406, 419 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C. for misappropriation of property and cheating the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the entire allegations in the private complaint are taken as true and correct at this stage, they do not constitute prima facie case of the offences punishable under Sections 182, 406, 419 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C; that therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the allegations in the charge sheet made out a prima facie case of the offences alleged; that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the order passed under the Code. If the allegations in the charge sheet do not make out prima facie case of the offences alleged, then only question of quashing the charge sheet arises. 6. Section 406 I.P.C. deals with punishment for criminal breach of trust. What is criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 I.P.C., which reads thus: "Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "Criminal breach of trust"." 7. There is no entrustment of property to the petitioners herein or the petitioners themselves misappropriated the same. Insofar as the cheating is concerned, there is no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners depriving the right of respondent No.1. No doubt, a civil suit filed by respondent No.1 for partition is pending. The allegation is that the petitioners sold away 100 Square Yards of the plaint schedule property to third parties. Even assuming for a moment that ultimately the civil suit is decreed, respondent No.1 is entitled for one share, whereas the petitioners are entitled for two shares in respect of the plaint schedule property to an extent of 300 Square Yards. Therefore, prima facie case is not made out for the offences alleged. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6 in C.C.No.271 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 03, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2738 OF 2009 Between: Shaik Shukoor and others .....PETITIONERS AND Shaik Sabira Begum and another ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2738 OF 2009 September 03, 2010