HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3828 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners are A-3 to A5. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. Although, the notice was served upon the defacto complainant and although the defacto complainant entered appearance, no one represented the defacto complainant. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant has been trying to convert a civil dispute into a criminal lis to circumvent law of limitation and had pressurised them to force the 1st accused to surrender to the defacto complainant. 3. The petitioners are A3 to A5 as already noticed. Accused 3 and 4 are the sons of the 1st accused in CC No.60 of 2008 on the file of the III Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District. Accused No.5 is the daughter of the 1st accused. It is the case of the defacto complainant that A-1 entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant on 4.11.1992 to sell Rs.0.55 share out of Rs.2/- share in M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkata Ramana Dal and Oil Mill wherein the 1st accused was one of the partners. The execution of the agreement of sale was nearly 20 years old. 4. The case of the defacto complainant is that A-1 went on postponing to execute the sale deed in respect of the share which A1 agreed to sell. A-1 executed a settlement deed settling Rs.0.05 share belonging to him in the mill in favour of A-4. A-3 to A5 acted as attestors for the settlement deed. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that A-3 to A5 joined hands with A-1 to cheat the 2nd respondent from enjoying the fruits of the agreement of sale existing in his favour. 5. Sri S.A.Razak, learned counsel for the revision petioners/A3 to A5 contended that the petitioners have nothing to do with the agreement dt.4.11.1992 between A1 and the 2nd respondent. The petitioners were neither executants nor parties nor were witnesses for the agreement dt.04.11.1992. It is further pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has not moved the civil court for specific performance of the agreement dt.4.11.1992 and that as the same is now barred by limitation, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed the present complaint against the petitioners and others to coerce the petitioners and others to force A1 to succumb to the demands of the 2nd respondent. His contention is that the dispute is purely a civil dispute in nature and that the 2nd respondent cannot set the criminal law into motion. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon SUNEET GUPTA Vs. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA[1]. In that case, the partner of one of the firms started a new firm trying to give a go-bye to the earlier understanding between the earlier firm and the third parties. The Supreme Court held that the conduct of the partner in starting a new firm would constitute a cause of action under civil law but would not be tantamount to an offence. On the strength of this ratio, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lis raised by the 2nd respondent is purely civil in nature. 6. The complaint does not read that the petitioners herein were parties to the agreement dt.4.11.1992. The 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioners and others were guilty of cheating punishable u/Sec.420 IPC. Where the father of the petitioners, who is A1 entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd respondent and did not act in accordance with the agreement of sale, I am afraid that prima-facie the petitioners cannot be roped-in for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 IPC. This is a clear case of abuse of the process of Criminal law. The case of the 2nd respondent is purely civil in nature. However, in this case, the petition is laid by A3 to A5 alone. I therefore, confine the relief to A3 to A5 only. The complaint against the petitioners is not sustainable as the same is a civil dispute. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The complaint in CC No. 60 of 2008 on the file of the III Addl.Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, is quashed against the petitioners herein only. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Dt. 18-03-2011 Mjl/* [1] (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 670