APHC010054512021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 820/2021 Between: Devara Kiran Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) HN, J Crl.P.No.820_2021 2 The Court made the following order: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2 in C.C.No.273 of 2020 for the alleged offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate Court and got the complaint referred to the Police for registration of a crime. The learned Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the Jammalamadugu Police Station and the Police have registered Crime No.56 of 2020 by arraigning the petitioner as Accused No.2. 3. The allegation in the complaint is that the 2nd respondent has entered into agreement of sale with the 1st accused and have purchased a land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.53 cents in Sy.No.361/3 and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- to the 1st accused. It is alleged that the 1st accused has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. It is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed the agreement of sale which is in favour of the 2nd respondent and has got executed a sale deed to defeat the claim of the 2nd respondent. HN, J Crl.P.No.820_2021 3 4. Notice sent by this Court was served on the 2nd respondent and proof of service filed. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent. 5. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Even as per the statement of L.W.1, the role of the 2nd respondent is limited to purchasing the property from the 1st accused. The other witnesses also alleged that the petitioner has purchased the property from the 1st accused. The petitioner is not a party to the agreement between the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances, the allegation of cheating cannot sustain against the petitioner. The claim of the 2nd respondent against the 1st accused would have to be dealt accordingly. In so far as, the role of the petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no material to prima facie come to a conclusion that triable issue would remain to be adjudicated by the learned Magistrate. 7. In such circumstances, no purpose would be served in relocating the petitioner to undergo the rigorous of trial. In view of these considerations, C.C.No.273 of 2020 on the file of the HN, J Crl.P.No.820_2021 4 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu, against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 07.04.2025 JLV HN, J Crl.P.No.820_2021 5 125 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.820 of 2021 Date: 07.04.2025 JLV