THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12646 OF 2010 DATED 23rd MARCH, 2011. BETWEEN : K.Jaya Lakshmi & another .. Petitioners-A.1 & A.2 and The State of A.P. & another ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.12646 OF 2010 ORDER: Present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2010 whereby the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing the petition as far as the first petitioner is concerned. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed as not pressed as far as the first petitioner is concerned. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submits that after proper investigation, the investigation officer referred the matter as ‘civil in nature’. Aggrieved over the same, the present protest petition is filed, upon which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and numbered the case as C.C.No.25 of 2010. Learned counsel submits that he is not challenging the power of the Magistrate to proceed further in the matter on the basis of the protest petition, but in the said protest petition there are no allegations against the second petitioner herein. On perusal of the complaint (protest petition), the allegations against the second petitioner are as follows: “ …… 12) The complainant submits that though he made several representations stating that he was ready to perform his part in paying the balance sale consideration, but the accused postponed the same. Since, no title or right over the property is conferred upon the 1st accused and therefore it is crystal clear that the intention of the accused in representing that the 1st accused is the absolute owner of the particular lands and as per the memo of understanding, it is also clear that her intention is to cheat the complainant only. The 2nd accused knowing fully well that the 1st accused is having no right, title over the lands made the complainant to believe that the 1st accused is the absolute owner of the above mentioned properties and having attested the memo of understanding as a witness is liable to be prosecuted along with 1st accused ….” This Court perused the entire record. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as far as the second petitioner is concerned, there are no specific allegations levelled against him more particularly to attract an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the complaint against the second petitioner alone is liable to be quashed and the learned Magistrate shall proceed against A.1. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed in part quashing the proceedings against A.2 alone in C.C.No.25 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cheepurupalli. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 23.03.2011 sur