ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is 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.4 to 6, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.235 of 2018 pending on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Though notice is served, none appeared for respondent No.2.

3. Heard Sri N.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

4. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are daughters of accused No.1.

5. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2010, the de-facto complainant was intending to purchase a flat, as he is retiring from services, for which he approached the builder namely M/s.Gharonda Builder and Developers represented by its Managing Partner Mr.Sunil J. Sachdev at its office at 4-4-932/2 & 3, Kandawamy Lane, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and the said Mr.Sunil J. Sachdev is going to construct new venture which is about to start by demolishing the already existing property bearing No.6-1- 280 and 6-1-280/E and part D, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad for which the de-facto complainant made an Agreement of Sale on 24.06.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.33,98,000/- as advance and would pay the remaining amount at the time of registration. In view of the retirement of de-facto complainant from the service, he disposed of the property situtated at Miyapur and invested the same on the aforesaid property and he promised him that he would hand over the completed flat by the year, 2012. Since the year, 2012 de-facto complainant has visited the office of M/s.Gharonda Builders and Developers more than 20 times but he has been wantonly avoiding the de-facto complainant and delaying the execution of sale deed. As such, he filed complaint to take necessary action against M/s.Gharonda Builders and Developers and basing on the said complaint the police registered the case vide FIR.No.229 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 submits that in the complaint all the allegations raised are against accused No.1 only and there is no role attributed to the petitioners and there are no specific allegations against these petitioners to attract the offences under Section 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Sunder and Others Vs. State of Haryana1 submitted that for the offences under Section 420 of I.P.C., there cannot be vicarious liability of the partners of partnership firm, unless they have played any specific role and the concept of vicarious liability is unknown to the criminal law and the same was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, therefore, the petitioners herein are in no way concerned with the offences and as such, the criminal

1 (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 630

proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2/accused No.5 is a resident of Karnataka and petitioner Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.4 and 6 are residing separately and are housewives, as such they are no way concerned with the offences alleged in the complaint. Therefore prayed this Court to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.235 of 2018 pending on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally, Hyderabad.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that there are many victims, who have suffered in the hands of the accused and the grounds raised by the petitioners herein are triable issues and the same can be decided at the time of trial. Further, the petitioners herein are the Partners of the company as such they are equally liable, along with accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss the petiti