IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained where the allegations do not disclose a criminal offence and are essentially civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2424 of 2023 pending on the file of IX-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 386, 509, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’).

2. The facts of the case are that on 10.12.2022 the defacto complainant-2nd respondent gave a complaint stating that she is the owner of land to an extent of Ac.2.11 guntas in Sy.No.316 and Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.316/A, backside of Classic Dhaba at Medchal. It is stated that in the year 2014 a total extent of Ac.2.15 guntas was given for development and executed a AGP in favour of one Kuthadi Srinivas, petitioner herein of Laxmi Balaji Developers, wherein, an agreement of sale was entered stating that the said Srinivas will take 67% and the 2nd respondent will get 33% profit to her. On 26.10.2015 the said Srinivas said that he would build 12 villas and give her, as her share of 33% profit and prepared a Memorandum of understanding. But the said Srinivas did not build and did not hand over Villas to her. When she asked about her share, the said Srinivas along with others threatened her. On 10.10.2022 at about 10.30 hours, the 2nd respondent along with her two sons saw that their land was fenced with tin. Basing on the MOU, when the 2nd respondent asked her share, then the Srinivas along with his sons threatened them, scolded and also warned to kill them. He also demanded to return the MOU and money otherwise he would kill her and that he would break the legs of her son. By the said acts, she realized that she was cheated by the said Srinivas. As such, she lodged a complaint with the police against the said Srinivas.

3. Heard Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-state. Even though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on her behalf.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Laxmi Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd., and he entered into an agreement of sale3 cum-GPA with the 2nd respondent and due to various reasons including non-cooperation of 2nd respondent and her family members the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney was not fulfilled and the development work has not commenced, whereby the said AGPA was cancelled, vide document No.1969 of 2016 dated 17.03.2016, by the 2nd respondent and her family members and by suppressing the above facts, in order to extract huge amounts from the petitioner, she filed the present case. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after cancellation of AGPA, immediately the 2nd respondent along with her family members again sold the land by way of residential plots to petitioner/A.1, where the petitioner purchased 39 plots from the 2nd respondent through different registered sale deeds in the name of firm and the sale deeds are also filed by the petitioner. Therefore, having sold the land by way of residential plots prior to filing of complaint, registration of present crime is illegal. He further submitted that petitioner herein also lodged a complaint to the police against the 2nd respondent including her family members vide FIR No.429 of 2023 and the said crime was registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 r/w.34 of I.P.C. According to the 2nd respondent the alleged incident happened on 10.10.2022 but after two months, suddenly she woke up and gave a complaint against the petitioner which shows that it is nothing but an afterthought. As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are allegations and counter allegations in this case which r