M.A.RAWOOF Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions are disposed of through this common order. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent in both the cases are common. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.508 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The 2nd respondent also laid First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.380 of 2013 on the file of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar against the petitioner. The petitioner seeks for the quashment of C.C.No.508 of 2013 through Criminal Petition No.9611 of 2013 and seeks for the quashment of FIR in Crime No.380 of 2013 through Crl.P.No.15132 of 2013. As the events are similar and the accused and the de facto complainant are identical in both the cases, both the cases are disposed of through this common order.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent before Mahabubnagar Police Station on 08 -4 -2013, which was registered as FIR in Crime No.111 of 2013. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was guilty of cheating and criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The complainant claimed as follows: The petitioner/accused is well known to the complainant/de facto complainant/2nd respondent since about 20 years. The petitioner, his uncle and others purchased Ac.1 -00 cents of land in Survey No.386, Balajinagar, Bandamidipally Shivar. The petitioner and his partners agreed to execute a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the uncle of the petitioner and the petitioner later entered into a partnership deed with the 2nd respondent agreeing to sell his share in the property in favour of the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ -, his share being 50% of Ac.1 -00 cents of land. The partnership deed as well as the agreement between the petitioner, his uncle and others were entered into on 05 -9 -2012. Contending that the petitioner has not paid any profits to the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner, his uncle and others sold away the entire Ac.1 -00 cents of land to third parties, it was alleged that the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

(3.) AS already pointed out, Crl.P.No.15132 of 2013 is for the quashment of FIR in Crime No.380 of 2013. The 2nd respondent contended in the complaint that he paid Rs.2,50,000/ - to the petitioner on 06 -3 -2012 for investment, that the petitioner executed an agreement in favour of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent came to know that the petitioner did not develop the area and did not agree to enter into partnership deed with him. The 2nd respondent further alleged that the petitioner has not paid the 20% share of profits, so much so, the petitioner is liable for punishment under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.