THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10840 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.577 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Huzurabad Police Station, Karimnagar District, stating that one Bandi Sambaiah, who is the father of accused No.1, agreed to sell his house to him vide house bearing No.9- 142/2, situated at Huzurabad for a valid sale consideration of Rs.76,80,000/- and took an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as an advance and executed agreement of sale in his favour. It is further stated that in this regard, accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the family members of the said Bandi Sambaiah, were also signed on the agreement. Later, respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the said Bandi Sambaiah for clearing of his loan to get the documents pertaining to the subject house. In the meanwhile, the said Bandi Sambaiah died by not clearing the loan. When respondent No.2 asked the family members of Bandi Sambaiah to register the said house in his name, they were postponing the matter on one pretext or the other, threatened him and told that the subject house was sold out to others. It is further stated that the said house was registered to accused No.4, who is the mother-in- law of accused Nos.1 and 2. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.391 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.No.577 of 2022 before the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

3. Heard Smt. Sahithi Sri Kavya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the subject property from accused Nos.1 to 3. He further submitted that the petitioner is no way concerned either with respondent No.2 or accused Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.4 is not a party to the agreement of respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner is no way concerned with the offence alleged by the respondents. He further submitted that even if the entire complaint is taken in toto, there is no role of the petitioner. He further submitted that without proper investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mariam Fasihuddin and Anr. Vs. State of Adugodi Police Station and Anr., [Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2024], wherein in paragraph Nos.10 to 13, it is held as follows:

“10. Section 420 IPC provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything, which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be liable to be punished for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, Section 415 IPC distinctly defines the term ‘cheating’. The provision elucidates that an act marked by fraudulent or dishonest intentions will be categorized as ‘cheating’ if it is intended to induce the person so deceived to deliver any property to any