The main legal point established in the judgment is that when disputes between the parties constitute only civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the Courts would not permit a person to be harassed. The court emphasized that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused was undesirable and amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.

ORDER :

In this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) the petitioner/Accused seeks to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.117 of 2015 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

2. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein was referred to the Police by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was registered as a case in Crime No.270 of 2014 by the IV Town Police Station, Nellore, for investigation and report.

3. The facts in issue are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is doing crusher business in the name and style of “Royal Stones”. The petitioner/Accused is the authorized agent to sell the properties of T.Uttam Reddy, who is the Proprietor of Deepaditya Developers Limited, Hyderabad, and he proposed to sell the land to an extent of Ac.1.08½ cents in Sy.No.289 and Patta No.369 of Epuru Bit-1B, situated in Pantapalem village, Muthukur Mandal and Gudur Revenue Division. L.Ws.1 to 3,(K.Venkateswara Rao, Shaik Abdul, Thalluru Kusumakar) visited the proposed land and de facto complainant agreed to purchase the said land for a sale consideration of Rs.54.00 lakhs. On 22.11.2008, the petitioner/Accused executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant/L.W.1 and received an advance amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs from him with a condition that he shall pay the balance amount within two months after measuring the land. The 2nd respondent requested the petitioner/accused to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed in his favour. But, the petitioner/accused postponed and evaded to execute the regular sale deed. On an enquiry, the 2nd respondent came to know that the said property was sold away to third parties by the petitioner/accused for excess consideration and got registered. When the 2nd respondent requested the petitioner/accused to refund the advance amount, he did not give a proper reply and on the basis of the complaint of the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.270 of 2014 was registered by IV Town Police Station, Nellore, for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against the accused regarding his complicity in the commission of the said offence, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet in thetrial Court. The said case is now pending before the trial Court. Questioning the same, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.

4. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. Fulminating the complaint allegations as false and motivated, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused would submit that the complaint allegations, even if, are accepted to be true, they would disclose the dispute as civil in nature. He further argued that if the petitioner/accused is not executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent, he ought to have issued a legal notice expressing his readiness and willingness on depositing the remaining amount in the Court. But, no notice was issued. Further, he would submit that the allegations in the complaint are purely civil in nature and the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the complaint and forwarded the same to the Police. He would further submit that the complainant is required to file a sworn affidavit in support of the complaint allegations as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC). In the instant case, since the complainant did not file any sworn affidavit, the learned Magistrate ought not to have forwarded the complaint to the Police for investigation. He, therefore, submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of