HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3165 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 (For short, ‘A1 and A2’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calendar Case No.668 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 423 and 506 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A1 and A2, the respondent No.2 is the complainant in the Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. Briefly the case of the complainant which is to be considered here is as follows: A1 got absolute rights over 1182 Square Yards of land situated in Survey No.403/1 (old) (120 new) of Shaikpet Village and Survey No.102/1 of Hakimpet Village. He gifted 250 Square Yards of land out of it in favour of his wife i.e., T. Vimala Devi. Both of them gave the entire land for development to third parties and accordingly, several flats were constructed therein. Subsequently, both of them executed registered documents in respect of several flats in favour of those who purchased the flats, except in favour of the complainant. In fact, A1 executed registered deed in respect of the flat purchased by the complainant and A2, who is none other than the son of A1, signed as a witness in the registered deed. Later on, the wife of A1 has been claiming her rights in the flat purchased by the complainant. Hence, A1 and A2 in the case cheated the complainant and therefore, they are liable for punishment for the said offence. 4. On behalf of A1 and A2, affidavit of the wife of A1 has been filed after giving time in that behalf. It discloses that the complainant purchased the flat and obtained the registered document from her husband without paying the sale consideration; that the flat which the complainant purchased from her husband does not fall within the land gifted to her; and that she will not make any claim over the flat purchased by the complainant. 5. It is clear by virtue of the affidavit of wife of A1 that out of the land admeasuring 1182 Square Yards, she got right only to the extent of 250 Square Yards of land which was gifted to her by A1, and A1 alone got right over the remaining extent of land, and to that extent the registered deed executed in favour of the complainant is valid. If the wife of A1 already sold away her right she cannot make any claim over the flat purchased by the complainant and in such a case the complainant can prove his rights exclusively. If at all the wife of A1 issues a notice to the complainant in the context of claiming right over the flat purchased by him, the same will not have any validity thereby. Therefore, I do not find that there is any criminal liability against A1 and A2 in the matter. In other words, it is purely civil in nature. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above the Calendar Case is liable to be quashed. 6. Subject to the observations made above, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in the Calendar Case No.668 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J December 26, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3165 OF 2009 December 26, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDRABAD Dated: 26.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3165 OF 2009 Between: Dr. T. Srinivasulu and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: