IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Monday, July 18, 2011. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 5760 of 2011 Between: Nalamvar Ashok …Petitioner and The State of AP and another …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 5760 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Cr.No. 65 of 2011 of P.S., Yedpally, Nizamabad District and he filed this petition for quashing the FIR in the said case. 3. The offence alleged is the one punishable under section 420 IPC. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.2.07 guntas earlier to some third party and again sold the said extent to the complainant’s daughter. The complaint reads that the complainant himself wanted to buy that land in the name of his daughter by arranging money. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions in assailing the FIR. The first contention is that the complaint should have been given by the complainant’s daughter, as she is the person said to have been cheated and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. There is no force in this contention. It may be noted that the complaint is given by none else than the father of the person cheated and the complaint reads that it was the complainant who gave money. Further the offence under section 420 IPC is a cognizable one and any body can set the law into motion for investigating into a cognizable offence. Accordingly the first contention is rejected. 5. The second contention is that through the sale deed in question, a copy of which is filed, the complainant’s daughter purchased in all Ac.8.00 of land and this Ac.2.07 guntas which is said to be in survey No.1054 is a part of it. May be, but it does not absolve the petitioner from the allegation that he did sell it earlier to a third party. He then pointed out that there is delay also in giving the FIR. It is true that there is delay, but for the offence under section 420 IPC there is no limitation for launching prosecution and hence the delay in giving FIR by itself is not a ground for quashing the FIR. The effect of delay has to be decided on evidence. He then pointed out that the petitioner is ready to pay that amount and also the penalty, but that itself again does not absolve the petitioner from criminal liability if it is established by police in the investigation. Thus it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the request for quashing the FIR is accordingly rejected. 6. However, having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is ready to pay back the amount along with penalty, the police before taking a decision about arrest of the petitioner, keep in view S. 41 Cr.P.C. as it stands now. 7. Accordingly this petition is disposed of at the admission stage. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 18, 2011. *BVS