ORDER :

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.169 of 2018 of Jami Police Station, Vizianagaram district.

2. Originally, a private complaint has been filed by 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant as against the petitioner herein/A1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 read with 34 IPC. The same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the police registered a case in Crime No.169 of 2018 of Jami Police Station, Vizianagaram district.

3. Brief facts of the case are that 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was doing real estate business in the name and style “Swarna Properties, Bangalore” and in the course of business he got acquaintance with the petitioner/A1. The de facto complainant started real estate business for purchasing house sites for the employees of APCT Employees’ Co-operative House Building Society at Visakhapatnam. Unfortunately, due to insufficient funds of the said society, as they dropped from their house site project, the de facto complainant paid back the society amount, but he continued with the petitioner/A1 as he has been taking the project by paying money to the concerned Ryots and land owners through the petitioner/A1. 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant had been making all transactions with the help of the petitioner/A1. During the period between October 2010 and November 2013, the petitioner/A1 made 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.13,39,34,878/-on different occasions by way of cheques, account transfers and cash either to him or to the accounts of A2 to A8. Out of the said amount of Rs.13,39,34,878/-, the petitioner/A1 had accounted for Rs.9,26,70,000/-and he had not accounted for the remaining amount of Rs.4,12,64,878/-. A1 to A8 conspired together and with a malafide intention, they cheated the 2nd respondent/de facto-complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 contends that even accepting that the entire accusations to be true, the offence would not attract against the petitioner/A1 for the reason that he is an agent to the de facto complainant. The only accusation made as against the petitioner/A1 is that, certain amounts were deposited in the accounts of the petitioner/A1 and his relatives to a tune of Rs.13.00 Crores and odd, out of which the petitioner/A1 purchased the lands to the extent of Rs.9.00 Crores and the remaining amounts have not been accounted for by the petitioner/A1. He further contends that the dispute is purely civil in nature and by any stretch of imagination the offences would not attract as against the petitioner/A1.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for 2nd respondent/defacto complainant contended that, prima-facie, basing on the accusations, an offence has been made out for the reason that out of the accounted money of Rs.13.00 Crores, which was deposited into the accounts of the petitioner and his relatives, the petitioner/A1 has only accounted for Rs.9.00 Crores and odd and the rest of the amounts have not been accounted for. The investigation is at nascent stage. The police have to investigate into the said offence and come to finality.

6. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, contended that all the accused and the defacto-complainant are related to each other. The amounts were deposited into the accounts of the petitioner/A1 and his relatives. He submitted that the amounts were deposited into the accounts of A4 and A7 who happened to be closely related to the petitioner herein. The residential addresses of those people were not furnished to the defacto-complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner/A1 visited the place of the defacto-complainant on few occasions and induced the de facto complainant to purchase the lands in Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram districts as a boom would arise in respect of the lands. Basing on suc