AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Suresh Reddy, J
All the four accused in CC No.114 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Nellore District, filed the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the said proceedings.
Heard Sri P.V.L. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.1 & 2/A.1 & A.2, offered to sell their RCC roofed building bearing D.No.6-87, East Street, Gudur town, in an extent of 25 ankanams to LW.1/2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as first installment to A.1 on 30.10.2013 and another sum of Rs.5,11,000/- to A.! & A.2 in the presence of LWs.2 and 3 and obtained agreement of sasle from them on 30.10.2013. A.1 did not register the house in favour of LW.1/R.2. While so, on 16.12.2023, A.1 got registered the said house in favour of Accused Nos.3 and 4, who are none other than the children of A.1 and A.2. In spite of mediations held between A.1 & A.2 and the 2nd respodnent, A.1 and A.2 did not execute the sale deed in favour of 2nd respondent. Thus, the 2nd respondent attributes that A.1 and A.2 in collusion with A.3 and A.4, cheated the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the said allegations, the police filed the charge sheet against all the four accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that A.1 and A.2 are the husband and wife, whereas, A.3 and A.4 are their children. Even according to the 2nd respondent, it is A.1 and A.2 who entered into agreement of sale with the 2nd respodnent, who received the entire sale consideration. So far as the Accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned no allegation has been made except stating that they are in collusion with A.1 and A.2, cheated the 2nd respondent.
This Court perused the entire material on record. It is stated in the FIR and in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the 2nd respondent, the allegation made against A.3 and A.4 is that they are the daughter and son of A.1 and A.2 and all of them conspired together and cheated the 2nd respondent. Further, the material on record, did not disclose prima-facie case against A.3 and A.4 i.e., petitioners 3 and 4 and hence, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. So far as petitioners 1 and 2/A.1 & A.2 are concerned, there is specific allegation made against them, who executed the agreement of sale and who received the entire sale consideration from the 2nd respondent and the criminal petition in so far as petitioners 1 and 2/A.1 & A.2, is liable to be dismissed .
Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4/A.3 & A.4 in CC No.114 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrtate of First Class, Gudur and the criminal petition of petitioner Nos.1 and 2/A.1 & A.2 is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.