A RAMESH BABU SINGARAYAKONDA PRAKASAM DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-1-A. Ramesh Babu in Crime No. 642 of. 2011 of IV Town P.S., Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam city to quash the proceeding therein. M/s. Akshaya Gold Farms and Villas (India) Limited-2nd respondent is a Public Company Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of procuring lands and urban properties for development, construction and to sell plots, farm sites and villas etcetera to customers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner-Aatmakru Ramesh Babu is one of the promoter Directors of the company. He negotiated with A-2-Gurram Janaki Ram, A-3-Bommidala Padm'a Lakshmi, A-4-Gobburu Mamatha and A-5-Gurram Venkata Rangam Babji for purchase of 14,850 square feet situated at Ward No. 2, Block-2, T.S.No. 90, Ongole. A-2 to A-5 agreed to sell the land admeasuring 14,850 sq. feet in favour of the complainant company. They received a total consideration of Rs. 15,70,00,000/-. The petitioner-A-1 instead of obtaining registered sale deeds in favour of the company obtained a sale deed bearing Document No. 4648 of 2011 for a part of the property in favour of M/s. Vani Enterprises (A-6) in which he has substantial interest. Subsequently, A-1 obtained sale deeds in his individual name from A-2 to A-5, vide sale deeds dated 19-4-2011, Doc.No. 4665/2011, 20/4/2011, Doc.No. 4769/2011 and 20-4-2011, Doc.No. 4770/20-11. The sale consideration has been flowed from the funds of the complainant company. A-1 instead of getting the sale deeds in the name of the company obtained sale deeds in the name of M/s. Vani Enterprises (A-6), wherein he has substantial interest, and also in his individual name. Thereby, A-1 in collusion with A-2 to A-6 played fraud on the complainant company and committed breach of trust rendering themselves liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 406 read with 120B IPC.

(2.) Heard Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-1 and Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant.

(3.) Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel submits that the disputes between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are purely civil in nature and their disputes came to be settled by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 17-12-2010 and if there is any violation of the MoU, the remedy available to the 2nd respondent-complainant is by way of approaching the civil Court for enforcement of specific performance of the terms of the MoU. Learned counsel took me to the contents of the MoU laying much emphasis on clauses 14 to 17, which read as hereunder:-