Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs The Hon'Ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa ... on 8 April, 2022
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRL.P.No.10103 OF 2018
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.27/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur, Prakasam District, a charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 406 & 420 IPC.
2. Brief Facts of the case are as follows; 2nd respondent herein who is the complainant, is a native of Pusapadu Village, Inkollu Mandal and he is working as Nayak in Indian Army, 3411/341 Medium Regiment (NRU) Pin:926341, C/o 56 APO. The accused is the resident of Vadderapalem Village, Inkollu mandal and doing real estate business. Marriage of the accused was performed with one Mallem Ravi of Perala Village, Chirala mandal in the year 2004 and due to ill-feelings and misunderstandings, they are residing separately. The accused went to Pusapadu Village in the month of October, 2013 and made friendship with 2nd respondent-complainant and his wife. In the month of October, 2013, the accused made them to believe, by telling deceitful words, that land value in Inkollu village and surroundings is very low at present and there is every possibility of abnormal hike of land value in future and that if the lands are purchased at that time, they would earn a lot of money by selling the lands in future. 2nd respondent believed the words of accused and made an oral agreement by agreeing to pay one percent of sale consideration as commission to the accused. Later, 2nd respondent deposited an amount of Rs.1,43,000/- in the bank account of the accused bearing No.044510100030239 through Andhra bank, 2 Veerannapalem Branch, Parchur and also deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the bank account of G.Sivaiah, who is the father of the accused, bearing No.52177316325, two times through State Bank of India, Inkollu and State Bank of Hyderabad, Inkollu branch on the request of the accused in the year 2014 for purchasing of lands in favour of 2nd respondent. Later, G.Sivaiah withdrew the amount, which was deposited by 2nd respondent in his account and handed over the entire amount to the accused in the month of May, 2014. One day, the accused came to the house of 2nd respondent, who gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused directly in the presence of other witnesses for purchasing of lands at Inkollu village in his favour. The accused had taken the said amount and promised that she would buy the lands definitely at Inkollu village and went away with cash. 2nd respondent came to her house in the month of October, 2015 on casual leave and asked the accused for sale agreement papers of land. But the accused gave evasive replies. On that, 2nd respondent caused enquiries about the accused and purchasing of lands and came to know that the accused did not purchase the lands in his favour with a dishonest intention and used the amounts for her own and thereby cheated 2nd respondent. Later, he met the accused at Inkollu village and asked the accused to return their amount. But, the accused did not return the amount to him and threatened him with dire consequences by stating that she would file criminal cases against him. He filed a private complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the de facto complainant gave a complaint against the petitioner for the above said offence, with a view to harass her. It is her case that it is the de facto complainant who has taken amounts from her and executed a promissory note and in respect of the same, the petitioner also got legal notice issued to the de facto complainant on 02.06.2015 and that the complaint is filed with a malafide intention. The learned counsel contends, that the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before this court vide W.P.No.17583/2015, on the ground that police was harassing petitioner and her family members and insisting on handing over the promissory notes executed by the 5th respondent therein to him.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that he did not execute any promissory notes and the said disputes are to be decided during course of trial.
6. This court perused the record. The allegations in the charge sheet are that in the month of October, 2013, the petitioner/accused, by saying deceitful words, made 2nd respondent-defacto complainant believe that land value in Inkollu Village and surroundings is very low at present, and there is every possibility of abnormal hike of land value in future, and if the lands are purchased then, they would fetch good money in future. Believing the same, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,43,000/- in the bank account of petitioner/accused and further deposited an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the bank account of her father, on the request of the 4 accused in the year 2014 for purchasing of lands in his favour. Later, father of petitioner withdrew the amount, which was deposited by 2nd respondent-defacto complainant in his account and handed over the entire amount to the accused in the month of May, 2014. it is further alleged that 2nd respondent-defacto complainant gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner/accused directly in the presence of other witnesses, and the petitioner/accused promised that she would buy the lands definitely at Inkollu Village and went away with cash. Later, in the month of October, 2015, when 2nd respondent-defacto complainant asked the petitioner/accused about the land, she gave evasive replies. 2nd respondent-defacto complainant caused enquiries about the accused and purchasing of lands and came to know that the accused did not purchase the lands in his favour with a dishonest intention and used the amounts for her own and thereby cheated him. When he questioned her, she threatened him with dire consequences by stating that she would file criminal cases against him.
7. A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would prima facie reveal that the petitioner/accused entertained dishonest intention from inception and made wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. The contentions raised by the petitioner/accused are all questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and they are to be decided during the course of trial. This Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the same. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 5 Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J 8th APRIL,2022 DMR 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY ORDER IN CRL.P.NO.10103 OF 2018 08-04-2022 DMR