SRIMOJU SANDHYA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.264 of 2018 of Mahabubabad Town Police Station, Mahabubabad District, which was registered against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 415, 420 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) The facts in issue are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 before the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, for the aforesaid offences, and the same was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C . for investigation and report. Basing on the said reference, the Police, Mahabubabad Town, Mahabubabad District, registered a case in Crime No.264 of 2018 and took up investigation.

(3.) The allegations in the private complaint are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant purchased a house plot admeasuring Ac.0.03 guntas (363 square yards) in Sy.No.437/B2 having its H.No.6-5-30/A66/2 in the name of his wife Chinthapally Santhosam from the 1st petitioner/A-1 on 26.08.1997 for a valid consideration of Rs.21,200/-. After receiving the above sale consideration, the 1st petitioner/A-1 executed an agreement of sale in favour of the wife of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 2nd petitioner/A-2, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner/A-1 also signed on the said agreement of sale as witness and further both the petitioners/A-1 and A2 agreed to execute registered sale deed whenever they prepared for the registration. It is also stated that wife of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant died due to heart stroke and in that depression, he could not ask the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 for execution of registered sale deed in his favour. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came to know that suppressing the agreement of sale executed in favour of his wife, the petitioners/A-1 and A2, sold away the land to an extent of 80 square yards, which is part and parcel of the plot sold to his wife. Immediately, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant approached both the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 and asked them about the said sale, but they necked him out from their house and also threatened that they will kill him if he again come to their house. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner/A-2 issued a legal notice through his Counsel stating that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is pressurizing him for execution of registered sale deed and he is not under any obligation to execute the registered sale deed as he has not executed any agreement of sale.