IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence of cheating, there should be an act of deception and delivery of property, which were not present in the present case. The court emphasized that the transaction was purely civil in nature and that the criminal complaint was filed 18 years after the alleged sale transaction, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against the accused.

ORDER :

1. The 2nd respondent filed private complaint which was referred to the police for the purpose of investigation. The said complaint was received by the police on 02.01.2016 and it was registered for the offences under Sections 406, 415, 418, 420 r/w 120-b of IPC.

2. The case of the 2nd respondent/Lw1 is that A2 is professional caterer since 1997 and he got acquaintance with the defacto complainant and through him he got introduced to A1. Through A1, he came to know that A1’s husband intended to sell open plot situated at Yellareddyguda, bearing plot Nos.30 and 31 admeasuring 542 sq.yds. According to L.W.1, he obtained encumbrance certificate and entered into an agreement of sale for the above said property for a consideration of Rs.1,22,000/-. He paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- in cash and Rs.25,000/- by cheque. Later, he also paid balance sale consideration on different dates and obtained receipts. A1 and A2 never came to register the sale deed. He came to know that family of A2 left for their native place. Later A1’s husband personally requested him that he will pay the sale amount already taken but they have not done so in spite of lapse of six years. They have also not executed registered sale deed in his favour. When he gave complaint to Neredmet police, the husband of accused No.1 promised to get the sale deed registered by A1, but it was registered on the name of A4, in spite of knowing earlier transaction with complainant. A suit was also pending between them and he filed complaint against A1 to A4. Police examined L.W.1 and filed final report as lack of evidence.

3. Having received notice from the police that the case is closed as lack of evidence, 2nd respondent filed protest petition which was taken up for consideration by the learned Magistrate. During the course of enquiry, the 2nd respondent marked Exs.P1 to P32 and also deposed on the facts of the case. Learned Magistrate having recorded the statement, by order dated 25.11.2017, directed that summons be issued to these petitioners and two others.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the transactions are purely civil in nature and the learned Magistrate without considering the facts has mechanically taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons. The complaint is filed with delay of nearly 16 years. The suit filed by the 2nd respondent for specific performance vide O.S.No.409 of 2006 was decreed in favour of the 2nd respondent. However, in the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner herein, the decree was set aside by the learned District Judge, in favour of 1st petitioner.

5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners having taken the amount from the 2nd respondent failed to register the land in his favour. Further to cheat the 2nd respondent, transferred the said land in favour of A4. During the course of investigation under the influence of the police officer, the complaint was closed. However, adequate reasons were given by the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and try the petitioners for the criminal offences.

6. Admittedly, the transactions pertain to the year 1998. In the year 2006, the 2nd respondent preferred suit for specific performance. The learned Senior Civil Judge directed the 1st petitioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent by judgment dated 11.09.2008. However, the said judgment was set aside by the District Court on 11.04.2012 on the ground that the 2nd respondent was not in a position to prove the execution of the sale agreement and there is a delay of nearly six years in filing the suit. The 2nd respondent failed to prove the transaction before the trial Court and substantiate his claim of making payment towards sale consideration to be correct.

7. The civil Court has considered the transaction in between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent regarding the sale transaction and framed issues accordingly. Though the trial Court found that the 1st