IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9772 of 2009 DATE: 02.11.2011 Between: Tangella Sharada and another …… Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9772 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 who are wife and husband are accused of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was referred to the police by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A-3 who is not a party to this petition is stated to be indulging in real estate business along with A-2. It is alleged that A-2 and A-3 introduced A-1 who intended to sell plot Nos.18 and 19 in S.No.4 of Fathulaguda village of Uppal Mandal, Rangareddy District to the 2nd respondent for total consideration of Rs.30,50,000/-. It is alleged that on 03.11.2008 advance of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid and an agreement for sale was executed in favour of the 2nd respondent. In pursuance of the said agreement, A-1 to A-3 are stated to have gone to Sub-registrar’s office at Saroornagar for registration of 2 sale deeds in favour of the 2nd respondent on 02.12.2008. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent paid balance of consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- to the accused and went for payment of challans towards stamp duty and that by the time, the 2nd respondent paid amounts under challans and returned, A-1 to A-3 slipped away. It is further alleged that after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,50,000/-, the accused again entered into another agreement with one P.Kiran Kumar to sell the same plots and received advance sale consideration from him. According to the 2nd respondent, on 28.09.2009 when the 2nd respondent questioned A-1 to A-3 about receiving advance from Kiran Kumar, A-1 to A-3 threatened the 2nd respondent with dire consequences and to see end of the 2nd respondent. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent filed suit for specific performance of agreement for sale and that A-1 filed another suit for return of original title deeds and link documents from the 2nd respondent and that both the suits are pending. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the case is one which is purely of civil nature and that the 2nd respondent failed to give any report to the police on 02.12.2008 itself and it shows that the entire complaint allegations are connected. Truth or falsity of the allegations in the complaint involves question of fact which this Court may not be in a position to entertain and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If the allegations stopped with failure on the part of the petitioners to execute sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent after receiving sale consideration, then it would be a different nature of the transaction. The allegations further read that after receiving entire sale consideration of Rs.30,50,000/- and after going to the document writers’ office and payment of two challans for Rs.9,070/- each towards stamp duty for obtaining two registered sale deeds, the accused slipped away and thereafter entered into another agreement with one P.Kiran Kumar to sell the same plots of land and received advance consideration from Kiran Kumar, disclose element of cheating on the part of the accused. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R at its threshold and prevent investigation of this case. 2) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 2, 2011 ksh