Dismissed

Nadipudi Tirumala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Nov 2019CRLP/6295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust regarding a property sale. The Court held that facts require investigation and directed the I.O. to complete it expeditiously while adhering to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the civil petition and directed the Investigating Officer to complete investigation expeditiously following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Nadipudi Tirumala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶3

Criminal Petition No.6295 of 2018

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitionersA1 & A2 supplicate for quashing the proceedings against them in Cr.No.313/2017 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

¶6

2. The grievance of de facto complainant is that both the petitioners-A1 & A2, who are husband and wife, informed the complainant that A2 owned approved house plots measuring an extent of 311 square yards in Survey No.36 in Aganampudi Village and those plots are under registered G.P.A. vide document No.5938/2006 and induced the complainant to purchase the same from A2 and accordingly, an agreement to sell dated 28.07.2014 was entered into for Rs.45,00,000/- and complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to A2 at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Accused handed over the original agreement of sale and Xerox copy of G.P.A. in respect of 611 square yards. Subsequently the complainant, on request of the accused, has paid the amounts from time-to-time towards part payment of sale consideration and by 30.10.2014 the complainant paid Rs.39,80,000/-. The accused promised that they would execute the Sale Deed. Finally when the complainant approached the accused on 31.10.2014 for the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,20,000/-, the accused rejected the request of

¶7

¶8

the complainant and threatened him and necked out him from the house of the accused. Thus, the complainant came to know that the accused had no intention to sell the property since inception and they cheated him. Hence, the complaint.

¶9

3. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State, and Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for second respondent.

¶10

4. Denying the complaint allegations, learned counsel would argue that the petitioners-A1 & A2 are not aware of second respondent and they have not executed any agreement of sale dated 28.07.2014 by receiving the advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as alleged, and they also did not receive any part payments as alleged in the complaint. When the complainant issued a legal notice dated 26.10.2017, the petitioners got issued reply notice dated 06.11.2017 refuting the contents of the notice. If really the sale agreement dated 28.07.2014 were to be true, the complainant would not have waited for three years to file the complaint. However, even till today the complainant has not filed any suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the conduct of complainant would show that the so-called agreement to sell is the myth and concoction. He thus argued that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and prayed to quash the proceedings.

¶11

¶12

5. Learned counsel for second respondent-complainant opposed the petition stating that the petitioners having received Rs.39,80,000/betrayed the complainant by refusing to execute the Sale Deed and their attitude would amply demonstrate that since inception they had no intention to execute the Sale Deed and therefore, they are liable for criminal prosecution.

¶13

6. Whether the agreement to sell is a genuine document executed by the accused and whether they received the part of sale consideration as alleged by the complainant and whether they have had no intention to execute the Sale Deed since inception etc. facts can be examined and resolved only after full-fledged investigation. As the matter stands, there is prima facie material against the accused to proceed with investigation. Hence, the investigation shall lead to its logical conclusion to unearth the truth. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

¶14

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed, directing the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation expeditiously. However, having regard to the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioners-A1 & A2 under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC are amenable to Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines rendered by the Apex Court in

¶15

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar¹ during the course of investigation . Further, the petitioners-A1 & A2 are directed to cooperate with the Investigating Agency for smooth completion of investigation.

¶16

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

¶17

stand closed.

¶18

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 07.11.2019 MVA

¶19

1 2014 (5) SCC 324

Nadipudi Tirumala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadipudi Tirumala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Subbarayudu, Vs The Vice-Chairman 8s Managing Director

Vandrasi Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam Vs Smt. Vandrasi Radha, Visakhapatnam and Ano

P. Bala Murali Krishna, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Paidimaria Kamalamma Vs K Mohan Rao

Chavvakula Rajesh, Ysr Kadapa Dist Vs Gm, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and 3 Others

Doddoju Ankatala Anuradha Vs Pola Bhaskar