THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4801 of 2008 DATED 8TH JULY, 2010. Between Kodipaka Buchamma and ors ….Petitioners/ Accused And The State of AP, Rep. By Public Prosecutor and anr. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4801 of 2008: ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is ﬁled to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 593 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad. The case of the prosecution is that a private complaint ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent before the Court below had been referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police registered the case and ﬁled charge sheet. A.2 andA3 are daughters and A.4 is the grand son of A.1, who is the owner of a residential house bearing No.12-93 situated within the grampanchayat limits of Rechini village of Tandur Mandal. A.1 oﬀered to sell the said house for Rs.1,70,000/-, for which, L.W.1 has come forward to purchase the same for the said amount. According to LW.1, he paid an amount of Rs.16,000/- to A.1 on 14.3.2003 as advance and the balance amount had to be paid on 14.4.2003 as per the agreement entered into. A.1 agreed to the said term and also agreed to execute the Registered Sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. Later on L.W.1 has approached A.1 several times with the balance sale consideration even before the stipulated date 14.4.2003 and requested her to receive the balance amount of sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed, but at every time A.1 was procrastinating the matter on one pretext or the other. The accused A.1 instead of receiving the said amount, abused LW.1 and asked him to come on 14.4.2003 and agreed to receive the amount and execute the sale deed in the presence of the witnesses. Believing the assurance of A.1, again L.W.1 met A.1 along with balance sale consideration amount in the presence of the witnesses, but the accused A.1 bluntly refused to receive the amount and execute the registered sale deed. Thereafter, L.W.1 issued legal notice on 20.4.2003 to A.1. A.1 with an ill intention to cheat dishonestly converted the said house under the agreement of sale for her own use and disposed of it to third party. She returned the notice as un-served by managing with the postal authorities. To counter blast the said notice, A.1 got issued legal notice to A.1 with false allegation and claimed for terminating the agreement of sale dated 14.3.2003. Later, some altercations took place in between LW.1 and A.1. On coming to know that A.1 has cheated him, L.W.1 ﬁled a private complaint before the Court below, which was registered by police in Cr.No. 45/2003 under Sections 408, 420, and 506 IPC. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the second respondent-State. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a reading of the complaint does not disclose any oﬀence against the petitioners as alleged by the defacto complainant. This Court perused the entire record and material papers ﬁled by the petitioners. A reading of the complaint as well as the charge sheet reveal that A.1 entered into an agreement of sale with defacto complainant for sale of particular residential house property to him. It is the allegation of the defacto complainant that after entering into the agreement, A.1 refused to register the sale of property in favour of the defacto complainant even after repeated requests. The defacto complainant further alleged that when she alone gave assurance to register the property on the stipulated date, he brought the witnesses on that date and even then also she refused to receive the balance sale consideration and refused to register the property. When there is an agreement of sale and there is failure on the part of the seller to register the sale in favour of the purchaser, the aggrieved party has to approach the competent civil Court to ventilate the grievance. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a suit for speciﬁc performance in between the parties herein is pending before the Court below. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to look into the documents or appraise any of the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side, which are not found part of the record. In any event, a mere reading of the charge sheet reveals that no oﬀence is committed by the petitioners as alleged by the defacto complainant under Sections 408 & 420 IPC. As far as the oﬀence under Section 506 IPC is concerned as alleged by the defacto complainant, there is no whisper of any usage of ﬁlthy language and threatening of the defacto complainant. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that further continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners before the Court below may cause hurdle/prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, for the reasons afore-stated, they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. 593 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad are quashed. The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 8T H JULY, 2010. Msnr.