The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.352 of 2020 pending on the file of Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy District and quash the same as being gross abuse of process of law. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings inctuding arrest of the petitioners in C.C.No.352 of 2020 pending on the file of Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VIJAY B PAROPAKARI ,Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Staate of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.'l The Court made the following: ORDER \ '7i / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.143 of 2O2l ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.352 of 2O2O on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy District against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

2. Heard Sri Vrjay B Paropkari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the unolficial respondent and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 State.

3. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 in C.C No.352 of 2O2O registered for the offences under Sections 42O,29O and 5O6 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.1 1.20 19 at about 13. 15 hours the de-facto complainant (LW 1 ) by narne Md. Zakir Hussain, S/o.Rouful Hussain, R/o. r 2 EryJ CRL.P.No.l43 of202l Kamareddy lodged a Telugu scribed complaint, wherein it is stated that one Ghousia Begum and Rehana Begum are the zrbsolute owners of two plots in Sy.Nos.68 /l and 68/2 admeasuring 223.5 square feet each located at Sircilla Roacl, Kamareddy. It is further alleged that one Md. Irfan, S/o. Osma, who is the son of Gousia offered to sell both the plots to him and Md. Mosin on 16.07.2019, as such, the said offer was accepted @ Rs.29,OOO/- per square feet Accordingly they paid Rs.5,OO,0OO/- for each of the plots aggregating to Rs. 1O,O0,OOO/- as advan<:e and thereafter another some of Rs.4O,OO,OOO/- has been paid for both the plots and thus, in total an amount of Rs.5O,O0,0O0/- has been paid and to that extent arr agreemcn: of sale has been execr-rted and a separate receipt has also been given and both the parties have agreed to proceed with the registration in the month of December, 2t-t19 upon receipt of the balance consideration. Thereafter. documents have been prepared for registration by pal,ing challan and subnritted before ttre office of registration, Kamareddy on

16.09.2019. Despite the said fact, the accused have not come forward to convey the sale deed and not responded to - I I / t 3 Et/y,J CRL.P.No.l43 of202l the telephonic calls made by the de-facto complainant and it was stated by the accused that they wanted to sell the plots and for more price and thereby denied for registration of the plots nor returning the money advanced to them. On the persistent requests, the accused have abused the de-facto complainant and threatened them with dire consequences and also on 07.11.2019 the accused persons have come to their houses and threatened and accordingly prayed for necessa4r' action.

5. Based upon the above said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Police Station (LW7) registered a case in Crime No.49l/2019 for the offence under Sections 420, 29O and 506 of IPC and investigation has been conducted. During the course of investigation, as many as seven witnesses have been examined and their statements were recorded in part - II Case diary and charge sheet has been laid. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the said case vide C.C.No.352 of 2O2O. Aggrieved by the said cognizance taken by the learned trial Court, this Criminal Petition has been filed. I 4 EWJ CRL.P.No.l43 of202l

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while rr:lying on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Radltreyshyam and others v. State of Rajasthan and anothe:rr would submit that the substance of the case on hand are similar to the facts in the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court and since the case on hand does not constitute an offence committed by the petitioners under Section 42O of IPC where Section 415 of IPC is not made otrt and except the civil proceedings nothing would subsist under criminal law. He would further submit that the civil proceedings have been before the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, wherein the plarntiff/defacto complainant has filed suit for specific performance and the same is 1>ending for consideration and the entire dispute is pertainrng to civil proceedings and the ingredients of criminal czrses do not attract against the petitioners Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner uould submit tJlat subjecting the petitioners to face the trial would amount to abuse of process of la'..r2 and thus prayed to allow the petition. 'lo:l l.ivct-a\r (595) 5 EW,J CRL.P.No.l43 of202l

7. Opposing the same, Ms. Dhanalaxmi, learned counsel for the unoflicial respondent while filing counter would submit that the respondent/ police conducted investigation in accordance with law and the statements necessary witnesses were recor:ded and those witnesses have to be examined by the learned trial Court along and only after conducting thorough trial, truth will be elicited and hence seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that unless trial is completed, truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court in the trial Court is not warranted and hence seeks to dismiss the petition.

9. Perused the material available on record

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the contents of charge sheet and the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Radheyshyam's ) / 6 EW,J CRL.P.No.l43 of202l lsupraf, this Court is of the opinion that in the above said decision the Honourable Supreme Court quashed the proceedings at the stage of FIR and whereas in the case on hand the investigating agency has completed investigation and the case has been taken cognizance by ttre trial Court.

11. In anv case, the learned trial Court is seized of the matter and the sr-rbject matter is pending since 2O2O onwards and by now hve years have elapsed. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court shall proci:ed n,ith the trtal in accordance with law. ln the meanu,hile, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the pe':itioners are granted liberg to Iile appropria'.e petitions including discharge petition before the leamed trial Court and upon flling such petition, the trial Coun shalt dispose of the said petition on merits and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably u,ithin three months from the date of receipt of a copy of th is order.

12. Further, as sought by the iearned counsel for the petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners-acctrsed ) \ 7 EW.J CRL.P.No-143 of202l Nos. 1. 2, 4 and 5 is dispensed with in C.C No.352 of 2O2O 1 on the lile of learn-ed Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy District, when represented by his counsel on record. The appearance of t}te petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 is dispensed with subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioners stating that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by them in any manner and shall not dispute their identity also. However, the petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall appear before the learned Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, Kamareddy District as and when their presence is required. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear when the trial Court directs, this order dispensing with their appearance shall stand cancelled automatically. With the above observation, this petition is disposed 13 of. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. P.PONNA KIRSHNA ISTANT REGTSTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l The Judicial First Class MagisIl-e K:ma R:ddy'Kama Reddy District' 'l I !

2. The Station House Offic,er, Kamareddy,Kamareddy District. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor,High Court of Telangana,Hyderabad. [OUTI 4. One CC tc, SRl. VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Advocate High Court pf Telangana, Hyderabad [OPUC] p p

5. Two CD Conies I I 1 \ l I l I HIGH COURT DATED:1010712025 t I ( ORDER CRLP.No.143 of 2021 't ;..a {''- r'\r' (' ?0 0[T ry5 1 .!. '|s^.,.^,-'' !\iil THI.- CRIMI)'{AL PETITION IS DISPOSED OI.. o lL 6f,u\rj-