Criminal Petition No. 4566 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K C BHANU
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 420, 465, 471
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.86 of 2012 on the file of Piler P.S. Chittoor District, insofar as the present petitioner-A2 is concerned. However, this order will not preclude the police in conducting investigation in respect of A1. Miscellaneous…
Judgment
This petition is filed by the petitioner-A2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.86 of 2012 on the file of Piler P.S. Chittoor District.
Originally, the 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the trial Court and the same was referred to police for investigation. On receipt of complaint, police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 420 IPC.
At the stage of FIR, the Court has to see whether facie case of the uncontroverted allegations made out prima offences alleged or not.
It is alleged that A1 received an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant towards advance promising him to bring agreement of sale duly signed by A2. In spite of several requests made by the complainant, the accused did not come forward to execute the regular sale deed, though A2 is not the owner of the property. It is further alleged that A1 created the sale agreement, dated 31-01-2008 by forging the signature of A2 and on the advice of the witnesses, the complainant held a panchayat with A1, but A1 did not give proper response and threatened him. Both A1 and A2 colluded together even as on the date of agreement and cheated the complainant.
There is no whisper in the complaint that as on the date of agreement of sale, the present petitioner was present and he signed the agreement of sale along with A1. It is A1 who received advance money of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant and it is he who allegedly forged the signature of A2. So, prima facie if the allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, at this stage, they do not constitute the offence of cheating or forgery against the petitioner because there was no inducement to the complainant by the petitioner to part with money or by the actions of the petitioner, the complainant suffered wrongful loss or the petitioner gained wrongfully because of the transactions of the present petitioner with the complainant. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.86 of 2012 on the file of Piler P.S. Chittoor District, insofar as the present petitioner-A2 is concerned. However, this order will not preclude the police in conducting investigation in respect of A1. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _ _______________ K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 29-11-2012 Hsd
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 420, 465, 471.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.