IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceeding cannot be maintained for civil disputes.

The petitioner-Smt.J.Sesha Ratna Kumari in Crl.P.No.2715 of 2013 is the sole accused in C.C.No.307 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 406 IPC, which is an out come of a private complaint of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant-P.Venkatesham dated 23.06.2011. The said private complaint was referred to Ramachandrapuram Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate for investigation, from which Crime No.206 of 2011 was registered and after investigation police filed the final report. After taking cognizance for the offences supra, the learned Magistrate issued summons and impugning the same, Crl.P.No.2715 of 2013 is filed.

1(a). The petitioner-Smt.A.Suchitra in Crl.P.No.2716 of 2013 is the sole accused in C.C.No.308 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 406 IPC, which is an out come of a private complaint of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant-P.Venkatesham dated 23.06.2011. The said private complaint was referred to Ramachandrapuram Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate for investigation, from which Crime No.207 of 2011 was registered and after investigation police filed the final report. After taking cognizance for the offences supra, the learned Magistrate issued summons and impugning the same, Crl.P.No.2716 of 2013 is filed.

2(a). The private complaint of the de facto complainant dated 23.06.2011 in registering the crime from reference by the learned Magistrate supra, in nut shell of C.C.No.307 of 2012 is that the de facto complainant is a registered Company engaged in construction and development of residential or commercial complexs with own reputation and the petitioner-J.Sesha Ratna Kumari-accused represented as owner of Plot Nos.82 to 84, 132 and 153, totally admeasuring 1,015 sq. yards comprising of Sy.No.198 of Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, for commercial use in the approved lay out of HUDA. Originally the said plots were agricultural lands later converted into plots and sold the same to individuals and the above four plots are the remaining after alienation and when accused supra was searching for purchasers or developers, mediators introduced the de facto complainant and accused impressed upon the de facto complainant about the viability of plots for development into independent houses and induced and persuaded the de facto complainant to enter into agreement with petitioner to construct duplex houses on mutually agreed terms and from that representations, the de facto complainant entered into registered deed-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) vide document No.9172 of 2008 dated 01.07.2008. As per the terms, the de facto complainant should construct duplex houses and share the constructed area into agreed ratio and the de facto complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- through Cheque bearing No.077028 dated 01.07.2008, to the petitioner as refundable deposit. After entering said agreement, the de facto complaint applied for permission on 18.08.2008 and 05.09.2008 to construct the residential houses. The Ameenpur Gram Panchayath, by letter dated 11.09.2008, informed the de facto complainant that permission will be considered only after obtaining necessary clearance from the concerned authorities after verifying full bank level of ‘Pedda Cheruvu’ and when the de facto complainant enquired with the petitioner in this regard as to whether the plots ever got inundated with flood waters of the said Cheruvu, the accused expressed ignorance, though informed they are holding particular lands for more than 15 years and never witnessed flood water into the lands.

The Ameenpur Gram Panchayat never intimated the de facto complainant with regard t