HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10438 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 506/34 IPC. A.3 and A.4 are husbands of A.1 and A.2 respectively. It is alleged that on the representation of A.3 and A.4, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant entered into agreement for sale in respect of Ac.4.00 out of Ac.8.36 cents in S.Nos.877/3 and 240 of Atmakur village for Rs.35,00,000/- @ Rs.8,75,000/- per acre and that in the agreement, A.4 also signed as witness/attestor and that subsequently the 2nd respondent came to know that there are two more co-owners with A.1 and A.2 for the land and that when the 2nd respondent questioned the same, the accused gave evasive answers and attempted to attack him and threatened him with dire consequences. Under the agreement, the 2nd respondent paid Rs.12,00,000/- to A.1 and A.2. Genesis this case is entering into agreement dated 29.07.2009 between A.1 and A.2 on one hand and the 2nd respondent on the other hand. It is stated that the 2nd respondent also filed suit for specific performance in respect of agreement for sale dated 29.07.2009 in Civil Court and it is pending. Total extent of the land is Ac.8.36 cents, out of which A.1 and A.2 executed agreement for sale in respect of only Ac.4.00, which extent is less than 50% of the total extent. Though the entire sale consideration for Ac.4.00 is Rs.35,00,000/-, only Rs.12,00,000/- was paid under the agreement. The allegation that the accused represented that A.1 and A.2 are the exclusive owners of the property, is proved to be false even from the agreement itself. In the agreement, the executants are described as four in number namely Kota Savitramma, A.1, A.2 and Balikala Leelavati. Out of the said four executants named in the agreement, only A.1 and A.2 signed in the agreement as executant Nos.2 and 3 leaving the place for executant Nos.1 and 4 blank. From the agreement, it is evident that there was no misrepresentation by any of the accused that A.1 and A.2 are the exclusive owners of the land being sold under the agreement. When basis of the alleged representation is found to be incorrect even from the document executed between the parties, I am of the opinion that the case cannot stand. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing FIR in Cr.No.159 of 2009 of Atmakur Police Station, Kurnool District. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 1st November, 2011. PNV