THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4527 of 2019

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.307 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr.K.Sathakarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Respondent No.3/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner, stating that the petitioner approached her and asked her to purchase a house bearing Municipal No.8-2- 293/82/A/795, situated at Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, claiming that his Company had an agreement with the original owner i.e., Smt. M. Jayasree, and amounts have to be paid to her and he would get the sale deed directly conveyed from her in favour of respondent No. 3. Believing the same, respondent No.3 entered into an agreement with the petitioner and paid an amount of Rs.14 Crores between July and November 2013 through cheques and RTGS to the petitioner and his company i.e., M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited and she was put in possession of the said property and established her boutique under the name and style of ‘Trisha Showroom’. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner failed to get the sale deed registered through M.Jayasree and postponing the registration. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 came to know that the petitioner had got the property registered in the name of his Company instead of her name and the petitioner informed to respondent No.3 that M.Jayasree was not agreed to execute Sale Deed in her favour on the ground of income tax issues. However, respondent No.3 promised her to register the Sale Deed shortly and entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Basing upon the same, respondent No.3 prepared the Sale Deed in the month of January, 2015 and petitioner signed the said document by providing all the details, photographs etc. and he promised to come to registration office to register the document. However, he kept postponing the same on one pretext or the other. At that stage, respondent No.3 came to know that the petitioner mortgaged it to the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) as collateral for a loan. When confronted, the petitioner admitted the fact and promised to clear the APSFC loan and execute the sale deed but failed to do so. Later, APSFC issued a notice dated 02.12.2015 proposing to sell the mortgaged property under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Respondent No. 3 further stated that the petitioner, who was acting as Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Dymes Engineers Private Limited, had earlier sold another property at Kokapet Village to her in December 2013 for a consideration of Rs. 2.5 Crores. However, after persuading her to cancel the said sale in January 2015, the petitioner failed to return the sale consideration and further stated that the petitioner has cheated Respondent No. 3 on two occasions, having received large amounts of money from her without executing the sale deed or refund the consideration, thereby committed the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. 4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner is purely civil in nature arising out of non-execution of the registered sale deed in respect of house property. Res