BHEEMIREDDY UMA MAHESWARI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.85 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District.

(2.) Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the 2nd respondent - defacto complainant filed a private complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotturu, Srikakulam District, alleging that the petitioner/accused and her husband approached him and one Bhaskara Rao Patro, expressing willingness to sell their house bearing H.No.378 situated in Srikakulam, upon which the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro agreed to purchase the same. It was alleged that the accused and her husband suppressed the real facts with regard to the title of the property and entered into an agreement of sale with them for a sale consideration of Rs.15,30,000.00, out of which an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 was paid as advance. It was further alleged that in the sale agreement, neither the measurements of the property nor the names of the boundary holders were mentioned and even the link document was also not provided, that the accused purchased the said house from her vendor under an unregistered document, that the title of the vendor of the accused itself was highly doubtful and the accused intentionally and wilfully suppressed all those details, with a view to cheat the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro. It was further alleged that in the above circumstances, the defacto complainant and Bhaskara Rao Patro issued notice to the accused asking her to cancel the agreement of sale and refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000.00 with costs and interest, but the accused did not do the needful. Upon forwarding of the said complaint to the concerned police for investigation, the police registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2014, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 I.P.C.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transaction between the parties is in relation to sale of an immovable property pursuant to the alleged agreement of sale entered into between them and the same being purely civil transaction, the defacto complainant has to pursue civil remedies in that regard and no offence of cheating is made out, even if the entire allegations are taken to be true on their face value. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.