The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurents of Sri Venkat Reddy Thipparthi, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ) THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY C RIMINAL PETITION Nos.5753 OF 2020,8 OF 202r AID 4610F 2021 CONTMON ORDER: Since all these three criminal petitions are filed seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 pending before the leamed XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad (for short 'Triat Court'), arising out of First lnformation Report (FIR) No.70 of 2020 on the file of Central Crime Station (CCS), Detective Department (DD), Hyderabad, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.5753 of 2020 is filed by Smt. M. Uma Devi Wo M. Sivananda Reddy (A2), partner in U & A Infra Projects, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.l2314 of 2020.

3. Crl.P.No.8 of 2021 is filed by Mr. P. Arogyam Reddy S/o Arlapa Reddy, M/s. U & A, Infra Projects i.e., Al and ,{6 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 pending before the Trial Court including further investigation in FIR No.70 of 2020. 2 Crl.P.No.46l of 2021 is filed by Mr. Mylaranr Sattaiah S/o' 4 Late M. Agamaiah, Mr. Mylaram Raju S/o' Late M. Gandaiah, Mr. Kalakolla Ashok S/o. K. Balaiah, i'e', A'3 to A.5 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.l23 14 of 2020'

5. Crl.P.No.S of 2021 is taken as lead case for disposal of these matters.

5.1 Brief lacts in Crl.P.No.8 of 2021 are as under: The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a cornplaint dated 24.06.2020 at 16:50 hours ;tating that on l2.ll.l9g3, the Inspector General of Police, SSF requested to allot the land in Survey Nos.393/1 to 393120 admeasuring Acs.142-39 guntas situated at Manchirevula Village, Gandipet Mandal, in favour of "Greyhounds" for the purpose of Operalional training and a report was called from the Revenue Divis;ional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division on 03.11.1994. After inspection, it was found that the land was assigned to twenty (20) Sclteduled Caste people (SC) by the then Tahsildar. The land is kept fallow and unfit for cultivation. The District Revenue Officer (DRO), Ranga Reddy (RR) District, took up the matter under Section 166-B of the 3 Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli (for short 'the Land Revenue Act') and issued show-cause notice to the assignees in File No.Dl/27511994 dated 28.03.1994 calling for explanation as to how the permission was granted for temporary occupation of Govemment land and why the subsequent Faisal Patti should not be cancelled. The DRO, RR District, after due enquiry, passed orders in File No.Dl l275l1994 dated 15.09'1994 stating that he did not find any reasons to interfere with the orders of the Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, in respect of the land in Survey Nos.393/l to 393120 of Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, in assigning the land in favour of twenty (20) individuals' The District Collector, RR District, took up the matter under revision under Section 166-8 of the Land Revenue Act and passed orders vide proceedings No.Dl/81/95 dated 03.01'1995, suspending the orders of Tahsildar, Hyderabad West, in File No.A6l8526/20 and also the order of the DRO, RR District, in File No.D 1/27511 994 dated 28.03. 1994, pending turther examination observing that the DRO, RR District, has not examined all the aspects in the case. I 4

5.2 It is stated that one Mr. Mailaram Malkaiah and another preferred an appeal before the Commis-. ioner of Land Revenue on 29.05.1995 for setting aside the orders of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, tn Proceeding:; No.Dl/8 I /95 dated 03.01.1995. The District Collector, Ranga l(eddy District, vide l-r.No.D1/81/95 dated 31.07.1995 has requested the Govemment to ratifr his action of suspending thc orders of the Tahsildar and DRO. The Govemment vide Nlemo No.544- l/Assn.lII(3)/95-1 dated 09.10.1995 took up suo ntoto review of the order of the DRO as per Section 166-C of the Land Revenue Act. The Government after careful examination of the case issued the above Memo dated 09.10.1995 directing the District Collector, RR District, to complete the enquiry taken up in the matter and pass final orders under intimation to the Govemment

5.3 It is stated that the assignees represented by the General Power of Attorney Holder (GPA) filed two (2) writ petitions i.e., W.P. No.484 of 1995 questioning thr: order of the District Collector, RR District, in suspending the ord,:r of the DRO and W.P. No.7221 of 1996, questioning the order ltassed by the 5 Govemment ratiffing the action taken by the District Collector, RR District, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (for short 'A.P High Court'). Both the writ petitions were allowed by the common judgment dated 01.09.1997. Aggrieved by the'said orders, the Govemment preferred appeals in W.A. Nos. 1487 of 1998 and 24 of 2000 challenging the common order dated 01.09.1997 in W.P. Nos.722l of 1996 and 484 of 1995 respectively. The Division Bench has dismissed the appeals by its judgment dated

14.09.1998 and 22.01.2000 respectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3033 of 2000 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (SLP) (C) No.3 I I of 1999 filed by the Government challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.l487 of 1998 has disposed of the appeal by the judgrnent dated

28.04.2000 directing the District Collector, RR District, to complete the proceedings initiated by him by his order dated

03.01.1995 which was ratified by the Government by the order dated24.0l.1995 at an early date, in accordance with law I 6 r)

5.4 It is stated that as per the orders c,f the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the District Collector, RR District, has passed orders in Proceedings No.811223312002 dated 10.0).2003 holding that assignees have sold the land in contravention o1'the conditions of the assignment. Iiurther, the assigned lands ha','e become urbanised land and no-longer sub-serve the purposc' of cultivation and issued directions to concemed authorities to rcs;ume the lands in Survey Nos.393/1 to 393120 admeasuring Acs.l42-39 guntas in to the custody of the Govemment

5.5 It is stated that aggrieved by the action ofthe District Collector, RR District, the alleged assignees started second round of litigation and, one Mr. M. Narsimha and others have filed another W.P. No.13165 of 2003 before the A.P. H gh Court. In 2005, the Additional Director General of Police, Greyhounds, filed a petition seeking to implead him as a respondent in r.he above writ petition. A.P. High Court has passed order in W.l). No.13165 of 2003 stating that the Govemment is always at libertl to cancel the order of assignment in accordance wit! law. Ac<:ordingly, the District Collector, RR District, vde Lr.No.LCll427OlO2 dated 7

29.05.2003 has allotted the subject land to Greyhounds and the then Deputy Collector & Tahsildar has given advance possession to the then lnspector General of Police (IGP), Greyhounds, on

03.06.2003 under the cover of panchanama. As per the instructions of the District Collector, RR District, the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, vide proceedings No.B/289 11999 dated 27.01.2007 has resumed the subject land into the custody of the Government and handed over the same to Greyhounds under the cover of panchanama dated I1.04.2007 .

5.6 It is stated that one Mr. M. Jangaiah and forty five (45) others filed W.P. No.3634 of 2007 before the A.P. High Court and obtained interim suspension order against resumption proceedings. The order dated 05.02.2010 was passed in W.P. No.3634 of 2007 setting aside the proceedings No.B/289/1999 dated 27.O1.2007. Aggrieved by the above order, the Government preferred an appeal in W.A. No.202 of 2010. The Division Bench in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 2010 in W.A. No.202 of 2010 has suspended the operation of the order dated 05.02.2010 in W.P. No.3634 of 2007 and directed the parties to maintain status quo. l1 8 r.\ The appeal was posted for final hearing on 05.07.2010 and pending since long time.

5.7 It is stated that the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, has resumed the subject land into the custody of the Govemment and handed it over to the Greyhounds in 2007. Since then the subject land is in the po:;session of the Greyhounds. While the position stood thus, some anti-social elements are distributing money in the form of crheques to the alleged assignees and luring them to itlegally alienate the Govemment land to the third parties without any valid title and even when the matter is sub-judice. Thus, there is clear violation of the order of the A.P. High Court and hence, requested to take necessary actlon.

5.8 It is stated that basing on the said complaint a case rn Crime No.70 of 2020 was registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of IPC by L.W.14 at Central Crime S'.ation (CCS), Detective Department (DD), Hyderabad, and entrust:d the case to L.W.ls for the purpose of investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) - L.W.l i; recorded the I i 9 statements of witnesses. L.W.l who is de facto complainant inter alia stated that L.Ws.3 and 4 have produced the copy of cheque issued by ,46 Company IWs. U & A Infra Projects vide A/c. bearing No.641260950 of Kotak Mahindra Bank to one of the persons for an amount of Rs.8,33,333/- dated 19.10.2019. Basing upon the bark statements of 4'6, Police have issued notice to A1 to ,A.5. A3 and ,A.4 in their reply stated that they have entered into Agreement of Sale with 4.6 Company represented by A1 and also received advance sale consideration and bound by the said agreements.

5.9 It is stated that in the course of investigation, A3 and ,A,4 have produced Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) of ,{6 Company represented by Al and A2. It is alleged that there is no valid ownership/title deed with .A3 to ,,A.5 and others to claim right over the land of Greyhounds. Even without having any ownership/title deed documents with A'3 to ,4'5 and others, 4'6 Company represented by A I and A2 have executed MoUs with ,{3 to 45 and others for purchasing the Greyhounds property; and Al and A,2 have given advance sale consideration to ,A,3 to ,A.5 and \ v I i I I 10 others. A.3 and ,{5 and other accused failed to produce the relevant documents to claim their rights over the subject lancl. On perusing the copies of MoUs, it was found that they were allegedly prepared and executed on 21.09.2019. However, surprisihgll' the signatures on some of the MoUs were on 18.09.2020 i.e., after registration of FIR from which it can be inferred that MoUs are made as an afterthought on a white paper, which is not a usual ;,ractice, with a dishonest intention to grab the Govemment land rvithout proper title,

5.10 It is stated that L.W.15 secured the prest:nce of L.W.4, who stated that in the month of August, 2019, /tl and others approached him with one Mr. Rakesh, one of their villager and induced him that they will look after the Civil litigrtion with the Government and will fight on their behalf with regard to Civil and Criminal cases. L.W.4 stated that since the land is under litigation, he has neither shown the land to accused nor has given consent to him, as it amounts to contempt of the Court. Later, he came to know that some persons have executed MoUs with 46 Company and wrongfully received Rs.50,00,000/- as advance consideration and distributed the amount among their legal heirs by violating the assignment rules. During the course of investigation, it was found that Al to A5 and A'7 to A18 were involved in these illegal transactions and accordingly, they were added as accused to the Crime No.70 of 2020 vlde SR No.981 of 2020.

5.11 It is stated that on transfer of L.W.15, L.W.l6 took up further investigation of this case. L.W.I6 issued notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to A2; the confessional sLatement of ,42 was also recorded. L.W.16 secured the presence of L.Ws.7 and 8 and initiated proceedings under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. to conduct search in the house of A2 for relevant documents. L.Ws.5 and 6 corroborating with the statement of L.W.4 have stated that Al to A,5 with the help of Al9 and others are trying to trespass in to the subject land allotted to Greyhounds. As per the bank statements of ,A.3 and ,A5 received from L.Ws.9 to I l, it is clear that A3 to A,5 have received amount pursuant to alleged MoU. Thus, prima facie crime is established against ,A'3 and ,{5 ard they were added as accused. Notice under I I I I I I I I 't 12 Section 4lA of Cr.P.C. was issued to A3 to h5 by L.W.16 directing them to appear before him on 07.1 1.2020 at I l:00 A.M.

5.12 It is stated that the investigation revealed the fact that thirteen ( l3) MoUs were entered into by At, - Company represented by its partners A I and A.2 on one s,ide and other accused on the other. The same is evidence from the Clause 8 of the alleged MoU, wherein, A3 to ,{5 appointed 1.6 - Company represented by A1 as their GPA to pursue the litigation to its logical end. As per Clause 5 of the MoU, ,{6 Company agreed to enhance the sale consideration by 15% in the eve:tt ol delay in clearing the litigation within three (3) years and as per Clause 7 of the alleged MoUs, ,4,6 Company would register Ac. t-00 guntas of land in favour of first party and the same will be taken again by ,4.6 Company for development. However, it is not revealed in the alleged MoUs whether the first parties are the family members or legal heirs of the original assignees from whom tht: subject land was resumed. The said first parties of 13 MolJs have also conspired with ,{6 Company represented by A1 an,J ,A.2 with an ,.1 l3 intention to cheat the Govemment and wrongfully gain the valuable subject land.

5.13 It is stated that due to COVID-I9, as the banks were not functioning with their full strength, the procurement of records was delayed. The Charge Sheet against the alleged beneficiaries representing as first parties of MoUs will be filed subsequently, after completion of investigation against them. It is alleged that in the investigation it was revealed that ,{6 - Company represented by A1 and A2 have entered into 13 MoUs; A2 signed on the cheques as joint account holder along with Al which has been issued to alleged beneficiaries i.e., other accused. Al9 - Mr. Gudem Rakesh S/o. Chandraiah has acted as a broker between the ,4,6 Company and other accused. It is alleged that the above acts of accused entering into transaction in respect of the assigned land is also an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 (for short .Act 9 of 1977'). lt is also alleged that as the subject land under l3 MoUs is an assigned land, which cannot be alienated, offence under Section 463 oflPC is also attracted which is punishable under Section 465 I / IU u I l ! ! 14 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 123 14 of 2020 before the Trial Court fc,r the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 120-8 ol'IPC, Section 447 read with Section 51 1 of tPC and Section 7 of the Act 1977 against Al to A19. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against A20 to ,{68 in the above Calendar Case

6. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, leamed Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. S. Nageshwar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

7. Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. S. Nageshwar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners, submitted that plain reading of the contents of the FIR No.70 of 2020 and charge sheet and offences mentioned therein, even if, the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken to be coffect, on the face value the essential ingredients necessary for constituting the alleged offences are not made out. The allegations against the accused are absurd, false and incorrect. The dispute projected by the de facto complainant is 'Civil in Nature', instead j l5 of resorting to civil suit; the de facto complainant has falsely lodged complaint with a mala fide intention to settle the civil disputes. Assuming that petitioners have violated the order passed in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 2010 in W.A. No.202 of 2010, the remedy available to the State is to file contempt case. The petitioners have entered into MoU in respect of litigation properties. It was clearly mentioned in the MoUs that land purchased by the petitioners is subject to outcome of the pending litigation. There is no prohibition under any law, to enter MoU or Agreement of Sale, if property ls entangled in litigation. The action of respondent authorities in registering the criminal case against the petitioners is gross abuse of process of law.

8. Leamed Senior Counsel further submifted that the Hon,ble Supreme Court has given a quietus to the titigation in Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2523 of 2022) by the judgment dated 01.08.2023 and the matter was held in favour of the Govemment. Thus, it would be just and appropriate, in the.interest ofjustice, to quash proceedings in C.C. No.12312 of2020. 1 l6

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation has been conducted by examining thirty witnesses and, primo facie case is made out against accused and thus, charge sheet vzas filed before the Trial Court. In view of the specific allegations made against the petitioners - accused herein, the remedy availabl,: for them is to prove their innocence in the Trial Court. Petitioners tried to create fictitious documents and lured the assignees to enter into MoUs, in violation ol the status quo order passed by A.P. High Court. Petitioners have paid sale consideration to the assrignees - third parties and thereby tried to grab the valuable Go'semment land which was allotted to Greyhounds. There are no merits in this criminal petition and liable to be dismissed.

10. On reading the contents of the charge sheet, it emerges that petitioner No. 1 - A I along with ,{2 who represented petitioner No.2 - A'6 Company have entered into MoU with the assignees and paid part sale consideration and allegedly in violatior.r of the status quo orders passed in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 2010 in W.A. No.202 of

2010. It is further stated that the petitioners have lured the assignees and tried to grab the valuable Govemment land. The t7 petitioners - Al and A6 were charged for the offences punishable underSections 406,420,465,120-B of IPC, Section 447 readwith Section 5 1 1 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act 9 of 1977 . I 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.l02 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lall has laid down guidelines, wherein the High Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings, which are as under: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or lhe inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, rve give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse ol the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of .justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. '1992supp(l)SupremeCourtCases33s \.. t 18 (l) Where the allegations made in the first information report or thc complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima lacie constitute an1- oifence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Whcre the allegations in the first information report and other materials. if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifoing an invcstigation by police officers under SectiorL 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate: within the purvicw ol Section I 55(2) of the Code. (3) Whorc the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in supltort of the samc do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused (4) Wrere, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizablc of'fence but constitute only a non-cognizable off'enoe, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (s) .. . (6).. (7) ."

12. In order to attract the offence under Section 406 of IPC for committing criminal breach of trust, accused shotrld have been entrusted with a property or a valuable security and accused so entrusted should have misused or misappropriated the property and l9 caused loss to the persons who have entrusted, In the present case, it is not the contention of the State - Police that the Govemment or the Police Department have entrusted the property to the accused persons and the accused have misused or misappropriated the same. The case of the prosecution is that accused persons have entered into MoUs with assignees and paid sale consideration when the matter was sub-judice and during the subsistence of the status quo order. Thus, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that there is entrustment of property by the de facto complainant in favour of accused and thus question of committing the offence of breach of trust does not arise.

13. -l-he offence under Section 420 of IPC is attracted only when a person fraudulently and dishonestly induces another person to part with the properfy and thereby causing loss to such person. The act of accused persons in entering into MoUs with assignees and paying sale consideration cannot be treated as deceit or dishonest intention. It was not mentioned in the FIR or charge sheet that asslgnees were deprived of their right and subjected to any 20 financial or property loss. Thus, the offence of cheating is not attracted

14. In so far as, criminal conspiracy under Ser:tions 1208 is concemed, the same would be attracted only when two or more persons conspire to commit cognizable offence. 'fhe act of the accused in entering into MoUs in respect of the litigation propefiy, during the subsistence of the status quo orders cannot by itself be treated as a criminal conspiracy to commit any offence. The writ petition filed by the assignees was allowed by ttre order dated

05.02.2010 and thereafter writ appeal was filed by the Govemment, wherein, status quo, order was passed by the Division Bench in W.A.M.P.No.476 of 20lO in W.A. No.202 of 2010. lt is clear from the contents of the MoU that .46 - Company represented by Al and A.2 have purchased the property subject to the outcome of the litigation. Thus, it cannot be said that there is illegality or conspiracy to commit a cognizable offence.

15. The offence under Section 465 of IPC is attracted when a party creates false document. There is no allegation of creation of any false document. The only allegation is that Mc,Us have been 2t entered into in respect of the disputed and litigation property. Thus, the offence of forgery is not attracted.

16. The offence under Section 447 of IPC is not attracted since it is the case of de facto complainant - L.W.l that the land belonging to the Govemment has been purchased by the accused persons under MoUs. In fact, it is asserted that the Greyhounds is in possession of the subject property. Thus, offence under Section 447 ol IPC is not attracted.

17. The prohibition sale of assigned lands is regulated under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. There is a procedure under Section 7 ofthe Act 9 of 1977 and cognizable ofoffence cannot be taken except with the sanction of the District Collector as provided under Sub Section (3) therein. There is no alienation of assigned land in the instant case and contravention of Section 4 of the Act 9 of 1977. A1 and .A2 who represent ,4,6 - Company have entered into MoU to purchase the subject land during the pendency of the litigation and it would not attract Section 4 of the Act 9 of 1977. ln any event the Act 9 of 1977 is a self-contained statute and there is no compliance of Section 7(3) as stated above. Hence, prosecution l { I 22 T of accused under Section 7 of the Act 9 of l!t77 cannot be sustained.

18. Though, charge sheet also mentions Section :; 11 of IPC, no allegations are made in the entire charge sheet for attracting the said offence. The contention of the State is seltr'contradictory; while alleging that substantive offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC etc. are attracted, at the same time, Section 5 I I of IPC is included. Prima facie, the contents of the charg,: sheet do not disclose the offence under Section 5 I I of IPC-

19. In any case, the matter has been settled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the leamed Single Judge which was set aside by the leamed Division Bench in Writ Appeal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave P,:tition (Civil) No.2523 of 2022) by the judgment dated 01.08.12023. Thus, ',{ .:]: whatever rights accused have claimed under the disputed MoUs has been nullified. The leamed senior counsel, Mr. r/inod Kumar, Deshpande, fairly conceded that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the accused persons neither have any claim nor can assert any rights over the land in occupation of Greyhounds and whatever rights they had under the MoU stood extinguished. ln the opinion of this Court, if status quo order is violated, the Government has an effective altemate remedy of filing contempt case. But, there cannot be any criminality attached to such acts. The instant case fits into the parameters/guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), more particularly, paragraph No.l02 (1) to ( ) therein. As discussed supra, there is no prima facie case made out to prosecute the petitioners - accused for the offences mentioned in C.C. No.12314 of 2020 (arising out Crime No.70 of 2020)

20. In view ofthe above, Crt.P.Nos.5753 of2020,8 of202l and 461 of 2021 are allowed setting aside the proceedings C.C. No.123 l4 of 2020 pending on the file of Trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these criminal petitions stand closed. I SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad 3. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of relangana at Hyderabad.[OUTJ i I I i I I I

5. One CC to Sri Vikas Joshi, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to Sri Venkat Reddy Thipparthi, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies VH/PSL F I 1dt s74 .€ o$ ( ) { 2 6 ,l'ltl 2925 1,\ (, :i) HIGH COURT DATED: 0210412025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.5753 of 2020 CRLP.No. 8 of 2021 AND CRLP.No. 461 ot 2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS U,la,r