RAFI UNNISA BEGUM (SMT.) AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners-A.1 to A.13 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No.32 of 2014 of Chikkadapally police station, Hyderabad registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State, the learned counsel for respondentdefacto complainant and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are accepted as true and correct, no prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out; that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, it is essential that an intention to deceive must be in existence at the time of entering into the disputed agreement; that subsequent failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement would not attract the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC; that there is no conspiracy or connivance as alleged by the defacto complainant; that all the family members including women folk are made accused in the instant crime; that in view of the accident suffered by the defacto complainant, he could not execute the work as agreed between the parties and therefore the petitioners were forced to enter into an agreement with another person and got the work executed; that the earlier agreement between the parties to the litigation was cancelled with mutual consent; that the petitioners are land owners; that as per the subsequent agreement between the parties, the petitioners are willing to allot and register a flat covered by 1333 square feet in favour of the defacto complainant, but the latter is interested to take some other flat which is not available; that the crime is registered on a reference by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; that a reading of the complaint shows that it is a civil dispute, and hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court, and ultimately, prays to allow the Criminal Petition.