This criminal petition is filed under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) to quash the complaint in C.C.No.82 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District.

2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the de facto complainants in the case cited supra.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagram District, alleging that they entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners-accused for purchase of an agricultural land to an extent of Acs.1.71 cents situated in survey Nos.66, 67 and 71 of Mukhasa Lingalavalasa Village and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. An agreement of sale was executed on 02.05.2007. As per the terms of the agreement of sale, the petitioners-accused had to execute registered sale deed within a period of nine months from the date of the agreement of sale. Though respondent Nos.2 and 3 are ready to pay the balance sale consideration to the petitioners-accused, the latter did not come forward for execution of the registered sale deed and postponed the same on some pretext or the other. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to know that the land sought to be sold was mortgaged to a bank for obtaining a loan for purchase of a tractor by the petitioners-accused. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the private complaint against the petitioners-accused under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Police for investigation, the Police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet and the same has been numbered as C.C.No.82 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagram, Vizianagaram District.

4. The petitioners-accused, aggrieved by the registering of the aforesaid C.C. against them, preferred this criminal petition for quashing the complaint in the said C.C. filed under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents 2 and 3 have entered into an agreement of sale on 02.05.2007 for purchase of wet and dry land to an extent of Ac.01.71 cents in Survey Nos.66, 67 and 71 in the limits of M.Lingalavalasa Village by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards earnest money and as per the said agreement, the petitioners have to register the sale deed within nine months from the date of agreement.

7. It is further contended that as the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners are bad and that the remedy available to respondents 2 and 3 is only to file appropriate suit for specific performance of contract. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to a clause mentioned in the Agreement of sale as under:

xxxxxx

8. Therefore, it is submitted that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but abuse of process of law which is liable to be quashed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that though the petitioners/ accused have agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the de facto complainants, mortgaged the same to the bank for obtaining loan for purchase of a tractor and failed to perform their part of contract. It is also further contended that the petitioners made respondents 2 and 3 to believe that there are no encumbrances on the property sought to be sold by them either in the bank or in any private institution or even with any private person and sold the property. As the complainant has believed them, purchased the property and they have cheated them, therefore, they filed private complaint.

10. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 is taken into consideration, it is not bro