HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6903 OF 2009 DATED.28-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused (For short, ‘the accused’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No.730 of 2007 pending on the file of the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Gujuwaka, Visakhapatnam District registered for offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioner is the accused, the first respondent is the de-facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The accused approached the de-facto complainant knowing that the de-facto complainant was doing real-estate business and introduced himself as an employee in the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and induced the de-facto complainant by his false representation that he and his relatives were having 42 house site plots at Kapujaggarajupeta in survey No.38/2 and all of them were ready and willing to sell the plots and so saying negotiated with the de-facto complainant for selling the 42 house site plots to him and received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance on 12-10-2002 and issued stamped receipt. Further, the accused approached the de-facto complainant on 19-10-2002 for some more amount to adjust for the said plots and collected Rs.1,20,000/- on 19-10-2002 and made acknowledgment vide cash receipt dated 12-10-2002 and lastly approached the de-facto complainant on 29-10-2002 with the same plea and collected another amount of Rs.40,000/-. Thus he totally collected Rs.3,60,000/- from the de-facto complainant in that behalf. Further, later the de-facto complainant approached the accused for executing a regular sale deed in his favour for the plots, but the accused did not respond. Further on his enquiry, he came to know that the accused was no way connected with the said 42 house site plots situated in survey No.38/2 and they belonged to some other persons in respect of which there was a court dispute pending on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka. Further, therefore dishonestly and intentionally and being not related with the above said plots, the accused cheated the de-facto complainant and hence the accused is liable to be punished for the alleged offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent- State. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that one of the plots belongs to his mother and the de-facto complainant obtained his signature under the so called agreement because the accused was in need of money and for that he agreed to sign wherever the de-facto complainant wanted and the matter is purely civil in nature and the de-facto complainant only filed a suit for the return of money and if the claim of the de-facto complainant is true, he could have filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and the document does not contain relevant particulars about who are the purchasers and what is the sale consideration for each plot and hence there is no criminal liability which is to be tried in the case relying on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Inder Mohan Goswami and another V. State of Uttaranchal and others[1] with a plea to quash the proceedings. 6. On the other hand, Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submits that there is sufficient material to prosecute the accused for the alleged offence. 7. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 8. There is material that the accused collected the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance in respect of 42 house site plots situated in Survey No.38/2 at Kapujaggarajupeta village at first and on 19-10- 2002 on the second occasion an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid and further on 29-10-2002 another sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid to the accused under the document and the accused signed in the document to that effect on different dates. There is a question as to whether under what circumstances the accused signed the document on the said three occasions and whether there is any element of cheating on his part and as to whether consequently the de-facto complainant suffered. At this stage, the Court cannot go into the merits of the case. 9. The facts of the case makes it very clear prima-facie that the accused induced the de-facto complainant to part with certain amounts with reference to the said transaction and accordingly the de-facto complainant parted with those amounts by which the accused gained. 10. In the decision cited supra, it is observed by the Supreme Court with reference to relevant facts and circumstances that the dispute therein is purely a civil dispute and the institution of criminal proceedings under sections 420, 120-B and 467 against the vendor is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and the Criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. This principle is not applicable where is material about criminal liability against a person. 11. In Kishan Singh V. Gurpal Singh And Others[2] the Supreme Court observed as under : “Thus in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.” 12. Therefore the Supreme Court comprehensively held that that the findings of fact recorded by a Civil Court would not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa where standard of proof is different and there is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that the findings recorded by the Court either in civil or 145 criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter where both the cases are to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced therein subject to some exceptions. 13. The same observations hold good to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the petition and accordingly the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:28-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6903 OF 2009 December, 28, 2011 DSH [1] AIR 2008 SC 251 [2] AIR 2010 SC 3624