IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2270 of 2007 DATE:08.06.2010 Between: M.Veeranjaneyulu …… Petitioner/Accused. And: The State, through Public Prosecutor and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2270 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner/A-1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 I.P.C in C.C. No.302 of 2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoni. A-1 and A-2 ran real estate scheme under the name and style of Simhapuri Estates at Adoni. The 2nd respondent and her sister joined as members in that scheme. As per the scheme, the members have to pay Rs.200/- each per month for 40 months with a facility of lucky dip in each month. After payment of 40 monthly instalments of Rs.200/- each, the accused are expected to register house plots in favour of those subscribers. The 2nd respondent and her sister were allotted plot Nos.191 and 192 in S.Nos.352, 366-B, 363 and 364 near A.P.S.R.T.C bus depot of Adoni. They paid 38 monthly instalments starting from 18.05.1984. It is alleged that when the 2nd respondent and her sister went to office of the accused at Adoni for paying balance, they found the office closed and that when they met the accused at their houses, they promised to allot the plots after converting the agricultural land into house plots and they would receive the balance after approval of lay out. So saying, it is alleged that the accused postponed receipt of payment of instalments on some pretext or the other. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent lodged report with the police in the year 2001 and it was investigated into and charge sheet was filed. After six years of filing of the charge sheet, A-1 came up with this petition to this Court for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.302 of 2001. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even though the petitioner was going round the lower Court, no interest was taken by the police or by the lower Court or by the defacto-complainant to produce witnesses and to complete trial and having vexed with the lower Court proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court. There are only 7 witnesses cited for the prosecution in the charge sheet. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the question of the 2nd respondent and her sister entitling for registration of plots in their names arises only after they paid total 40 instalments and not when they paid only 38 instalments even as per the prosecution case. It is also contended that the case is one which is purely of civil nature and there is no element of criminality involved in the prosecution. According to the prosecution, though plots were numbered on paper, they were not found on land because no lay out plan was approved and the land remained only agricultural land. When the accused have closed their office and when the accused did not receive balance of two instalments on one pretext or the other, A-1 cannot accuse the defacto-complainant and her sister as defaulters. As per allegations in the charge sheet, it is the accused who prevented the subscribers from making payments of last two payments. It is a matter of evidence and a question of fact. This Court cannot go into the said controversies in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that the case is purely one of civil nature. Having collected 38 instalments out of 40 instalments, the accused cannot hold the said money with themselves and dub the defacto-complainant and her sister as defaulters. 4) Hence, the petition is dismissed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of C.C. No.302 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from date of receipt of this order. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 8, 2010 KSH