P PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in crime No.237/2003 registered against them on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 409,420,468 and 471 read with 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC')

(2.) The second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners. That complaint having been forwarded to the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills P.S., the crime was registered against the petitioners on 24-03-2003 as crime No. 237/2003 as aforesaid. While the investigation was in progress in the said case, the petitioners approached this Court seeking to quash the same.

(3.) It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that the complainant was the owner of the premises bearing H.No. 8-3-684/3/1/A situate at Yellareddyguda, LICColony, Near Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. One Sri Rami Reddy was the eastern neighbour of the complainant. Both the accused who had acquaintance with the said Rami Reddy used to visit him. During their visits, they develped a dishonest intention to grab the complainant's plot covered by survey No. 96 and described in detail herinabove. The first peitioner met the complainant on 25-05-2000 and intorduced himself as the Managing Director of M/s. Doyen Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and the second petitioner is his mother and the Director. The petitioners informed the complainant that their company was having excellent reputation and vast experience in developing real estates into residential complexes and townships; and that Rami Reddy, eastern neighbour of the complaint, was giving his premises to them for development. They further informed that he would develop the property of the complainant along with the property of Rami Reddy into a beautiful residential complex promising to give 50% of such built up area to the complainant. Both the petitioners with dishonest intention made the above false representation to the complainant and induced him by deceitful means to enter into a development agreement. Believing their false representation, the complaint entered into a development agreement on 04-06-2000 with the first accused and delivered the property to them for development.