Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bheemireddy Uma Maheswari vs The State Of A.P
BENCH – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6897 of 2015
DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023
This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District.
The 2nd respondent – defacto complainant (Lakshamna Panigrahi) filed a private complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District, alleging that the petitioner/accused and her husband approached him and one Bhaskara Rao Patro, expressing willingness to sell their house situated in Srikakulam, upon which the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro agreed to purchase the same. It was alleged that the accused and her husband suppressed the real facts with regard to the title of the property and entered into an agreement of sale with them for a sale consideration of Rs.15,30,000/-, out of whichan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as advance. It was further alleged that in the sale agreement neither the measurements of the property nor the names of the boundary holders were mentioned and even the link document was also not provided, that the accused purchased the said house from her vendor under an unregistered document, that the title of the vendor of the accused itself was highly doubtful and the accused intentionally and wilfully suppressed all those details, with a view to cheat the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro. It was further alleged that in the above circumstances, the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro issued notice to the accused asking her to cancel the agreement of sale and refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs and interest, but the accused did not do the needful. Upon forwarding of the said complaint to the concerned police for investigation, the police registered a case, conducted investigation, and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transaction between the parties is in relation to sale of an immovable property pursuant to the alleged agreement of sale entered into between them and the same being purely civil transaction, the defacto complainant has to pursue civil remedies in that regard and no offence of cheating was made out, even if the entire allegations are taken to be true on their face value. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
The learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the prayer made, stating that whether the accused has committed the alleged offence or not has to be decided by the trial Court after completion of trial and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.
In this case, this criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner herein in on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District was hereby quashed.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”