The coexistence of civil and criminal proceedings is permissible if allegations indicate a prima facie criminal offence, and mere prior civil disputes do not preclude criminal action.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.160 of 2014 of Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Someshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. The Respondent No.2 has filed private complaint on 25.06.2014, on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, stating that respondent No.2 and the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of house property bearing Nos.11-3-848/1 to 5, situated at New Mallepally, Hyderabad, purchased under a registered Sale Deed vide Document bearing No. 529 of 2005 for a total consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioners and respondent No.2 entered into a Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, dated 29.12.2005, registered as Document No. 4433 of 2005 before the Sub-Registrar, Golconda, and Hyderabad, agreeing to develop the said property and share the built-up area in the ratio of 40:60 between the petitioners and respondent No.2 respectively. Respondent No.2, in addition to the initial payment of Rs.40,00,000/- made at the time of purchase, and continued to pay amounts from time to time and paid a total sum of Rs.1,68,00,000/- to the petitioners towards the purchase of their 40% share, and valid receipts were issued by them acknowledging the same. As the petitioners were residing in the USA, they executed a General Power of Attorney (for short ‘GPA’), dated 20.01.2007, in favour of respondent No.2, authorizing him to sell their 40% share of the developed property. Acting upon the said GPA, respondent No.2 sold several flats to various purchasers and presented the sale deeds for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Golconda. However, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deeds on the ground that the GPA had been cancelled by the petitioners, which is illegal and void, as the said GPA was irrevocable.

3.2. Respondent No.2 further averred that the petitioners, with dishonest intention, have cheated and caused wrongful loss to him, and therefore, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint seeking action against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, and 204 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Based on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the same to the Station House Officer, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in turn, the said complaint was registered as Crime No.160 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners:

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in this crime. The nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint is purely civil in nature. To resolve the civil disputes, respondent No.