APHC010289672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4696/2024 Between: Ponamala Dharma Teja ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PETA GNANA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4696 OF 2024 ORDER : 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in CC.No.290 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had obtained a hand loan of Rs.17,00,000/- from the petitioner by way of depositing the title deeds relating to Ac.0.30cents of land. The said property is a registered mortgage in favour of one Odugu Chiranjeevi and that the 2nd respondent was willing to repay the money and get the property re-conveyed in the name of 2nd respondent. 3. It is also alleged that the money was repaid to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is not registering the land to the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has executed a registered sale deedin favour of one Odugu Chiranjeevi on 05.09.2018 vide registered sale deed vide document No.4616 of 2018 by the SRO, Ibrahimpatnam. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if at all the property was re-conveyed by the said Chiranjeevi and not to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the civil transaction between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is now converted into criminal transaction. Even as per the FIR, there is no documentary evidence that the 2nd respondent had mortgaged the property with the petitioner. 4. A notice was sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, which was returned with an endorsement that the 2nd respondent refused to receive notice. Hence, service is held sufficient. 5. A prima facie case does not make out against the petitioner and the claim of the 2nd respondent for re-conveyance of the property by the petitioner cannot be complied with by the petitioner. As the 2nd respondent admittedly executed a sale deed in favour of Odugu Chiranjeevi. On these grounds, this Court is inclined to quash the CC.No.290 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 236 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Petition No.4696 of 2024 Date: 03.04.2025 KGM