THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6468 OF 2008 Date: 09.11.2011 Between: Katukuri Ramadevi …..Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6468 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. The petitioner herein is the second accused in C.C.No.286 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapally (trial court) registered for the oﬀence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. She ﬁled this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the proceedings in the above case against her. 3. The case is a court referred complaint. The version of the second respondent is that the ﬁrst accused agreed to sell him certain extent of land and also received part of the sale consideration by way of advance and executed an agreement of sale dated 3.2.2004. The other details are not necessary. The grievance of the second respondent is that subsequently the ﬁrst accused sold away the property to the petitioner herein who is the second accused and that the petitioner also knowing fully well about the earlier agreement of sale, colluded with the ﬁrst accused and both of them cheated him. After the trial court referred the matter to the concerned police, they investigated into the matter and ﬁled the charge sheet pleading a case of cheating. 4. Sri Ch.Pratap Reddy raised two contentions in support of his plea for quashing the case. The ﬁrst is that in the complaint initially ﬁled in the court, the complicity of the petitioner is not made clear and she is described as a third party and therefore she can be treated as an innocent purchaser. Elaborating on this contention, he pointed out that the complainant himself is a lawyer and despite the fact that the complaint contains allegations in detail, the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 at the time of the execution of the sale agreement dated 3.2.2004 is not mentioned and this was subsequently introduced by the investigating officer in order only to bolster up the case. The second contention is that though the agreement of sale is dated 3.2.2004, the complaint has been ﬁled in 2007 only as a last resort as the complainant’s remedy for the relief of specific performance was barred. 5. On the other hand, Sri Ravi Kiran Rao says that both the above contentions involve disputed questions of fact and they have to be decided only on evidence in the trial court and therefore this court cannot interfere now in the matter. 6. It may be noted that so far as the ﬁrst of the above two contentions is concerned, it is true that in the complaint as initially ﬁled in the court nothing is mentioned about the presence of the petitioner at the time of execution of the agreement of sale and it is also not mentioned that the petitioner is a relative of the ﬁrst accused. These two lapses constitute omissions but a perusal of the Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statements of the attestors to the agreement of sale would show that both of them spoke about the presence of the petitioner also at the time of execution of the agreement. Similarly even the relationship of the petitioner with the ﬁrst accused is not mentioned in the complaint but it is only subsequently mentioned in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements. It may however be noted that whether the above lapses demolish the prosecution case or not is a question of fact to be decided on evidence and not in this petition. 7. Similarly the contention relating to delay in giving the F.I.R. which may have an eﬀect on the truthfulness or otherwise of the case is also to be decided on evidence in the trial court. Hence it follows that this court cannot go into the above two contentions in this petition. Lastly one submission is made by Sri C.Pratap Reddy that the matter involves essentially civil disputes but the police have investigated the matter and ﬁle charge sheet making out criminal oﬀence. This aspect also to be decided by the trial court having regard to the above conclusion. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, it follows that this court cannot interfere in the matter and this petition is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 9th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6468 OF 2008 DATE: 09.11.2011