IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the basis that the allegations may also constitute a civil wrong, emphasizing the need for trial to determine the merits.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.39 of 2021 on the file of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, [for short ‘IPC’].

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) In the year 2014, Respondent No.2, through her brother-inlaw who does real estate business, purchased six plots bearing Nos.39, 40, 41, 47, 48 and 49 in the name of her husband, in Veda Bhoomi Heights from Petitioner/Accused, who is its Managing Director, paid an amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs and got executed an agreement to that effect.

(b) Petitioner/Accused promised to Respondent No.2 to get the said plots registered, after obtaining approval from C.R.D.A, but, till now no approval was granted by the C.R.D.A. On enquiry, Respondent No.2 came to know that the said land was mortgaged to some third parties and without obtaining any approval from C.R.D.A., Petitioner/Accused got registered some plots to some others.

(c) As the Petitioner/Accused neither registered the plots nor returned the advance amount paid by Respondent No.2, she lodged a report with the Police, which is registered as a case in Crime No.39 of 2021 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Grounds for quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds :

(i) Petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence much less the alleged offence.

(ii) Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present crime eventhough he has nothing to do with the alleged offence.

(iii) Present complaint has been lodged with false and vexatious allegations without any truth only to bring pressure on the Petitioner.

(iv) The present complaint is of civil nature and there is no criminal liability against the Petitioner.

(v) The averments made in the complaint do not make any offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

(vi) The said agreement is valid for only three months and the Complainant having done nothing for more than six years against the agreement of sale, has now filed the criminal complaint without approaching the civil Court, which would clearly show that the present criminal proceedings are initiated only to threaten the Petitioner and as such, the present complaint is liable to be quashed.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit by reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard G. Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that it is a civil dispute to which the Complainant intends to give the colour of criminal offence. It is submitted that, after six years of the alleged agreement of sale, the present complaint has been filed stating that the advance amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs was given to the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the Complainant was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during investigation. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused cannot be quashed.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

Point for determination

9. Now the point that would emerge for determination is :

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accu