Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 696 (AP)

Maligareddy Anantha Reddy v. State of A. P.

2008-08-28

P.SWAROOP REDDY

body2008
ORDER This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 60 of 2007 of Marriguda Polcie Station, Nalgonda District, against them. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. The case of the de facto complainant is that on 01-01-2005, he entered into an agreement of sale in respect of an agricultural land to an extent of Acs: 20-16 gts, situated at Vattipally Village, Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, for a consideration of Rs. 48,00,000/-, with the petitioners, and the petitioners have received an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- on the same day. There was an agreement that on payment of balance sale consideration within 55 days from 07-10-2005, the petitioners will execute the sale deed. After completion of the said period, the de facto complainant approached the petitioners several times to receive the balance sale consideration, but they have refused and postponed saying that they would receive the entire amount at the time of registration. Finally the de facto complainant issued a legal notice, dated 12-04-2006, to the petitioners. Though received the said notice, they did not give any reply nor executed the sale deed. When the de facto complainant requested to refund the advance amount with interest, they did not repay the same, but they sold away the said land to third parties in contravention of the agreement, dated 01-01-2005, entered between the parties. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have agreed to sell the land to the de facto complainant and received Rs. 2,10,000/- as advance and the de facto complainant agreed to pay the balance sale consideration within 55 days, but after completion of the said period, the de facto complainant never paid the balance amount in spite of their approach for payment and get the land registered and that after a lapse of 55 days, they sold away the said land to some one else as they were in need of own, as such, he did not take any steps for getting the land registered money. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the de facto complainant entered into an agreement with them, the price of the land has come down, as such, he did not take any steps for getting the land registered and after the land price went up, he approached the petitioners to pay the balance sale consideration, but the petitioners have sold away the said land. 5. In the complaint, it is nowhere stated that the petitioners have sold away the land in dispute before expiry of 55 days, within which the de facto complainant has to pay the balance sale consideration. Though the de facto complainant stated that he approached several times to pay the balance amount, there is no material for the same and the notice was issued only in April, 2006, which is the only authentic material to show that he approached the petitioners for payment of the balance sale consideration. Thus, the material clearly shows that the de facto complainant was never ready to pay the balance sale consideration for getting the sale deed registered, within the stipulated time of 55 days. Perhaps, as the petitioners were in need of money, they sold away the property to someone else. Thus, there are no merits in the complaint and further more, the dispute is predominantly civil in nature. 6. Considering all these circumstances, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No. 60 of 2007 of Marriguda Police Station, Nalgonda District are quashed against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.