JUDGMENT :

D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.

1. Criminal Petition No. 7768 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 to quash all further proceedings against him in Crime No. 95 of 2018 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

2. Criminal Petition No. 7790 of 2018 is filed by the petitioners-Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to quash the proceedings against them in the same Crime No. 95 of 2018 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

3. Since both the cases arise out of the same issue and are filed questioning the same FIR, they are taken up together for hearing.

4. This Court has heard Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor-appearing for the State.

5. The essential ground on which the quashing is sought is that a pure civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is a civil suit i.e. O.S. No. 41 of 2015, which is pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for cancellation of three Registered Powers of Attorney-cum-sale agreements, dated 24.07.2012. The suit is filed in July, 2015. The FIR, as per the learned counsel was registered on 24.03.2018, purely as a counter blast to the civil suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the offence under Section 420 IPC is not at all made out as there is no element of cheating right from the inception. He points out that the land transactions, which are purely of a civil flavour are being converted into a criminal case. He points out that a reading of the complaint itself shows that the allegation of the de facto-complainant is that they were cheated by the petitioners. He submits that this cannot be true as the parties are experienced businessman. He also points out that a reading of the complaint shows that ultimately 1400 sq. yards instead of 1500 sq. yards was also agreed be registered, failing which they agreed to would pay the equivalent money. As per the complaint even this part of the agreement was not implemented and therefore the case of cheating has been registered.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the case law Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 59, M. Suresh and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 876, Vikram Johar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2019) 1 Law ISC 123, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State of Delhi, (2019) Cri. L.J. 1297 and Manik Taneja and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 argued that this is purely a civil transaction and that there is virtually no element of cheating and that no other offence is also present in this case. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this is a case in which an experienced businessmen have entered into a land transaction, which unfortunately did not fructify as they wanted. He points out that the transactions relates to the period 2012 and a deed of acceptance was also entered into between the parties and therefore he submits that in view of the case law cited this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. He also points out that in the interim period the charge sheet has also been filed and that as per the settled law on the subject, the FIR can be quashed even if the charge sheet is filed.

7. Coming to the offence under Section 506 IPC also learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mere abuse of a person does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation. According to him the ingredients of intimidation which have defined in Sections 504 and 506 IPC and also in the judgment reported in Vikram Johar case (supra) are not at all fulfilled. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of all the proceedings.

8. In reply to this Sri T. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the private respondents relying upon Parbatbhai Aa