HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2332 OF 2007 Date: 31.05.2010 Between: Nimmineni Rama Rao and another …..Petitioners And: The State through SHO Vemulawada Police Station rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2332 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 506/34 I.P.C in Crime No.63/2007 of Vemulawada Police Station. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant, A-1 and Kathroju Vittalaiah jointly purchased land near old bus stand of Thippapur village and the sale deed was registered in the name of A-1 and Vittalaiah, even though the 2nd respondent invested Rs.1,82,590/- for purchasing land and Rs.3,90,449/- for construction of shops and that as per their terms, A-1 is having 1/4th share, the defacto-complainant is having 1/4th share and Vittalaiah is having 1/2 share in the property. A-1 is stated to have executed a document in favour of wife of the defacto- complainant in respect of one shop. It is further alleged that A-1 failed to give share of the defacto-complainant equal to 1/4th share. Thus, in so far as allegations touching Section 420 I.P.C are concerned, it is contended that case is one of purely civil nature. There was no allegation that by deceiving the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant, the sale deed was obtained in the names of A-1 and Vittalaiah in spite of the 2nd respondent contributing money for purchase of land and for construction of shop rooms. Admittedly one shop room is registered in the name of the 2nd respondent’s wife. There is no allegation of any dishonest intention on the part of A-1 in the transaction muchless dishonest intention from the time of inception of the transaction concerned. It is not known why the sale deed was obtained in the names of A-1 and Vittalaiah alone and not in the name of the 2nd respondent. It is evident that with a view to force the accused to compromise, a civil dispute is given colour of a criminal case. 2) In so far as allegations touching Section 506 I.P.C are concerned, it is the 2nd respondent’s case that on 09.03.2007 at 11.00 A.M he went to house of A-1 and demanded to give his share of profit to the extent of 3,07,942/- in their wines and Adithi business and also share in construction made at the old bus stand, thereupon A-1 and A-2 threatened him to go away from their house. A-2 is son of A-1. When the defacto-complainant is stated to have gone to the house of the accused, they asked him to go away from their house. Taken the allegations granted, it will not amount to any intimidation muchless criminal intimidation attracting liability under Section 506 I.P.C. Thus, F.I.R in this case has no legal legs to stand. 3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.63 of 207 of Vemulawada Police Station in so far as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:31.05.2010. KSH