THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1014 of 2012
Date:15th March, 2012
Between:
Kale Malakondaiah S/o.Sivaiah & Anr.
..... Petitioners/A1 & A2
AND
The State of A.P., through SHO, Pamur P.S., Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.
.....Respondents
***
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1014 of 2012
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in Crime No.2 of 2012 of Pamur Police Station, Prakasam District, to quash the proceeding therein.
2. 2nd respondent-Smt.Sura Parvathamma presented a report before the Station House Officer, Pamur Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that the 2nd petitioner Kale Malakondaiah @ Chinamalakondaiah executed an agreement of sale in her favour on 04.02.2000 and received a consideration of Rs.30,500/- and delivered possession to her. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of his son by name Kale Harinarayana on 23.09.2011 and thereby cheated her. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.2 of 2012 for the offence under Section 420 IOPC came to be registered. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the accused in Crime No.2 of 2012 of Pamur P.S., under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding therein.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent/complainant perused the material brought on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent/complainant issued a notice, dated 10.12.2011, calling upon the 2nd petitioner to execute a registered sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale, dated 04.02.2000. Thereupon, the 2nd petitioner issued a reply notice, dated 26.12.2011 denying the agreement of sale. The 2nd respondent/complainant instead of pursuing the remedy in a civil Court, presented a report before the Police so as to pressurize the petitioners to give up their claim over the land in dispute.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/ complainant submits that the 1st petitioner executed a registered gift deed in favour of his son to avoid the agreement of sale executed by the 2nd petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioners 1 and 2, who are no other than the brothers, colluded together to defeat the claim of the 2nd respondent/complainant.
6. I have gone through the material placed on record. The 2nd respondent/complainant issued a notice to the 2ndpetitioner on 10.12.2011 calling upon him to execute a registered sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale, dated 04.02.2000. The 2nd petitioner issued a reply notice, dated 26.12.2011, denying the agreement of sale. The dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent is essentially a civil in nature. Invocation of criminal proceedings, in the given facts and circumstances, by the 2nd respondent/complainant against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceeding in Crime No.2 of 2012 of Pamur Police Station, Prakasam District.
