THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6135 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6134 of 2009 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6135 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Dr.G.V.Mohan Prasad, S/o.Sri Mallikarjuna Rao … Petitioner AND 1. State of A.P. & another. … Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.6134 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1.Kumar O.P.S. S/o.Osuri Anji Babu & another … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6135 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6134 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners in these two criminal petitions who are A1 to A3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. in Crime No.197 of 2008 of Suryaraopet (L&O) Police Station, Vijayawada. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereupon the Police registered this crime. It is alleged that A1 to A3 met the complainant on 01.01.2007 and showed agreement for sale dated 25.09.2006 executed by N. Sanjeeva Reddy in favour of A1 to A3. The said agreement is in respect of 25gts. out of Ac.2.25gts in S.Nos.346 to 349 located in Kamalapuri Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34. It is further alleged that A1 to A3 informed that the property is free from all encumbrances, and induced the complainant saying that the property is valuable property located in good area of Hyderabad. It is alleged that again on 06.01.2007, A1 to A3 discussed with the complainant about the transaction and that A1 to A3 agreed to take the complainant as their partner and requested her to pay advance amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and that the complainant paid Rs.50,00,000/- to A2 by way of money transfer into his bank account and that on 07.02.2007 after seeing the site, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the complainant and A1 to A3. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the 2nd respondent will have 1/6th share i.e. 16.66% share in the venture on payment of Rs.1.5 crores out of which Rs.50,00,000/- was paid by the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that A1 to A3 did not start any work in that property. It is further alleged that A1 to A3 are having dishonest intention to cheat the 2nd respondent from the inception of the transaction and to cause wrongful loss to the 2nd respondent. 2. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions that they are Doctors and they wanted to construct a venture in the site purchased under the agreement for sale and that simply because there is delay in starting the venture, the 2nd respondent cannot allege cheating. The transactions between the 2nd respondent and A1 to A3 are all evidenced by documents and money transfer of Rs.50,00,000/- was through bank accounts only. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent filed Suit in the II Additional District Court, Vijayawada against the petitioners in respect of the transaction and it is pending. It is the contention of the petitioners that subject matter of this crime is purely of civil nature and that there is no element of crime involved in it. When there are documents evidencing the transaction between the parties and receipt of money from the 2nd respondent and assuming that there is delay in starting the venture, at best it can be said that there is breach of contract between the parties in relation to the transaction covered by the Memorandum of Understanding. A mere breach of contract will not amount to cheating. It is not the 2nd respondent’s case that the agreement for sale executed by N.Sanjeeva Reddy in favour of A1 to A3 is not a real transaction and the 2nd respondent was mis- represented about any facts by A1 to A3 either at the time of making money transfer of Rs.50,00,000/- through bank accounts or at the time of execution of Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. There is also a civil Suit pending between the parties in relation to the same transaction. Thus, the dispute between the 2nd respondent and A1 to A3 is merely a civil dispute relating to breach of contract; and registration of the case for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. in these circumstances is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 3. In the result, both the criminal petitions are allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.197 of 2008 of Suryaraopet (L&O) Police Station, Vijayawada. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 25.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6135 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6134 of 2009 DATED: 25.03.2011 ysk