APHC010180962023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2715/2023 Between: Donavalli Babu Rao and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 in C.C.No.738 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, Krishna District, for the alleged offences under Sections 420 r/w 34 of IPC. It is alleged that the 1st accused has cheated the 2nd respondent by entering into an agreement of sale on 21.03.2015 for selling Ac.0.99 cents of land in Survey No.406/2A at Veluru Village, for an amount of Rs.29,70,000/-. In that regard, on 23.03.2015, the 1st 2 accused signed an agreement of sale at the house of the LW.1, and A2 to A4 signed on the agreement as witnesses on behalf of the 1st accused. 2. It is alleged that the accused Nos.5 and 6 counted the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- on the instructions of LW.1, and that they counted the amounts received from LW.1 on two occasions. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only mediators and family friends of the 1st accused and were present during the transaction. It is submitted that the non-registration of the sale deed by the 1st accused has triggered the 2nd respondent to file a complaint. It is stated in the complaint that the 2nd respondent obtained the Encumbrance Certificate from the Sub-Registrar’s Office and came to know that the 1st accused had sold the land to one Machineni Koteswara Rao of Gunadala, Vijayawada, whose statement is recorded as listed witness No.7. When LW.1 questioned the 1st accused, she did not give any proper reply. 4. It is submitted that as per the complaint, and even as per the statements recorded, the petitioners have absolutely no role in the commission of the alleged offence, much less under Section 420 of IPC. It is further submitted that this Court considered the Criminal Petition filed by accused Nos.4 and 7 and allowed the same on 27.02.2023. The order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.13491 of 2018 is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are also mediators for the said transaction and are not aware of the sale deed executed by the 1st accused in favour of LW.7. It is submitted that the petitioners have not signed the said 3 sale deed either as witnesses, nor have they participated in the mediation of the transaction relating to the sale executed in favour of the listed witness No.7. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. Notice has been served on the 2nd respondent, but there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have received amounts from the listed witness No.1 and the 2nd respondent herein. 8. In the entire record, the role of the petitioners in committing the acts or incidents which would attract the provisions of Section 420 of IPC is missing. Even the statements recorded by the police only indicate that the petitioners have received amounts on instructions of the 1st accused from the 2nd respondent and that they only counted the amounts received from the 2nd respondent. The role of the petitioners is evidently missing in the commission of the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC. Participation as mediators for a sale transaction cannot attract the provisions of Section 420 of IPC. 9. The listed witness No.7's statement has stated that he has purchased Ac.0.99 cents of land in Survey No.406/2A after negotiation for Rs.15,84,000/- and got it registered on 24.08.2015 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Krishna District, vide document No.2475/2015 and that he subsequently came to know that the 1st accused had entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent and had collected an amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. The statements of the listed 4 witnesses also would not indicate the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 10. Considering the same and also following the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.13491 of 2018, whereby two other mediators to the said transaction were found not guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC, and this Court had allowed the criminal petition filed by them. 11. Following the same, this Criminal Petition is also allowed, and C.C.No.738 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, Krishna District, is hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 5, and 6. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 21.04.2025 PNS