THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16228 of 2024

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1716 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2024 respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a report against the petitioner before the Police stating that he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the purchase of two parcels of land, one measuring Ac.43.600 square yards situated near the Railway Station, Raichur, and another measuring Ac.120 located at Matumarri Village, Raichur. As part of his business, the complainant had subsequently sold the said land parcels to various purchasers and handed over all the sale proceeds to the petitioner. However, despite repeated requests, the petitioner failed to return the original land documents and kept postponing the matter on one pretext or another. The complainant made several attempts to contact him, but the petitioner had switched off his mobile phone. In the month of June 2024, the complainant visited the residence of the petitioner and demanded his share of the amount and the original documents. However, instead of resolving the issue, the petitioner allegedly threatened him with dire consequences.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.500 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1716 of 2024 before the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.

4. Heard Sri P. Animi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner were false, baseless, and motivated and that the petitioner had no connection with the alleged offence, and the complaint was filed by respondent No.2 solely with an intention to extract money from the petitioner. He further submitted that the FIR and the complaint did not disclose the specific date on which respondent No.2 allegedly visited the house of the petitioner, except for a vague reference to the month of June. In fact, respondent No.2 never visited the petitioner's house in that month. If at all there was any such visit or threat as alleged, respondent No.2 ought to have filed the complaint at that time, but he failed to do so.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had paid the agreed commission to respondent No.2 and handed over all the relevant documents at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed and that the dispute arose only after respondent No.2 demanded additional commission, which the petitioner refused. The present complaint was a result of collusion between respondent No.2 and the former manager of the petitioner, and was filed only to harass the petitioner. He further contended that if any amount was actually due, the proper remedy for respondent No.2 was to approach a civil court for recovery, and not to lodge a false criminal complaint and that the petitioner had already handed over all necessary documents to the purchasers on

28.08.2023, and no dues were outstanding. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the documents filed by the peti