High Court · 2025

1 State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. for 2. Yasmeen Rubina, Wo. M.A. Hakeem, Occ House wife, Rep. by her G.p.A the State of Telangana and State of A.P. Sri. M.A. Hakeem S/o. M.A. Sattar, aged (44) years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No. 501 M Block, Garden Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 quash the FIR No.23012014 dated 29.10.2014 on the file of Habeebnagar P.S., Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(CRLPMP. NO: 5312 OF 2015) Petitlon 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 vacate the interim orders in Crl.P.No.364 of 20.15 dated 30 01.2015. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018 ::2:: 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 vacate the interim stay granted in Crl.P.No. 364t2015 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 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 vacate the stay granted in Crl.P.No.364 12015 on the file of Hon,ble High Court, dt 30.01.2015 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [\4emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri 6013/SRl KRISHNA SHARMA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and Sri Deepesh Bahadur appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No'364 of 2O15 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of ttre Code of Criminal Procedure, lg73 (fo: short' 'the ' Cr'P'C'J by the petitioner/ accused to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.23O of 2Ol4 pending on the file of Habeebnagar Police Station' Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are that the accused having 2. collected huge extra amounts from the de-facto complainant apart from the agreed amount as per the agreement of sale in respect of the by not schedule properties, deceived tt.,e de-facto complainant delivering the possession of the schedule properties to her' threatened Ihe de-focto complainant with dire consequences' Hence' a case was registered uide Crime No'230 ol 2014 before the Habeebnagar Police, Hyderabad' for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 406, 483,5O4 of the IPC read with Section 156(3) of the He also Cr.P.C. Heard Sri Ch'Janardhan Reddy' learned counsel for the 3. petitioner as well as Sri E'Ganesh' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No' 1-State and Sri Deepesh Bahadur' learned counsel for respondent No'2' Perused ttre material on record' I 7 51(s,J CrLP.No. 364 of2015

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner .;firstlg submitted that though the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences, a false case is filed against the petitioner with a mala ftde intention to grab the schedule properties. He secondlg submitted that the d.e_facto complaina-nt agreed to support the petitioner Iinancially by lending money and obtained the documents i.e., agreement of sale_cum_GpA and gift settlement deed in her favour fraudulently by taking advantage of illiteracy of the petitioner in respect of the schedule properties. He thirdlg submitted that the petitioner revoked the said gift settlement deed in respect of the schedule properties. He fourthly submitted that though the disputes between the petitioner and the de- facto complainant are civil in nature, a criminal case is filed with false and fabricated allegations only to harass the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar pradesh and othersl and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He further submitted that though respondent No.2 paid the sufficient amounts as demanded by the petitioner for purchasing the schedule properties, the petitioner deceived her by not delivering the possession of the schedule \zoz11 r< scc e:o I I I 3 .STSJ C .P.No. 364 of2015 properties. He also submitted that the petitioner besides collecting the huge amounts from respondent No'2' also threatened her with dire consequences. In support of his submission' he piaced reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Rqiesh BaJqi o' stdte NcT of DelhP and Sonleet lrtafllck a. S;torte of Jturktwnd qnd' others8 prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition' On the other hand, learned Assistant hrblic Prosecutor for 6. respondent No. l-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there are serious allegalions and investigation is not yet completed and at this stage' quashing of proceedings does not arise' Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties' this 7 . Court has perused the material available on record ' The material evidence available on record prima facie discloses that respondent No.2 paid the amounts to the petitioner for purchasing the schedule properties and the petitioner failed to deliver vacant possession of the schedule properties to respondent No'2' Pertinently, while dealing with quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court cannot evaluate the evidence or go into discrepancies in the evidence or act as an appeilate Court and despite the fact that a civil dispute exists between the parties' a criminal case '1rsse; : scc zse t (zoz+) to scc 5zz \ t 4 sI(s,J a CrLPNo. 364 of2O15 is maintainable. In the present case, the petitioner having collected the amounts from respondent No.2 under the agreement of sale, deceived respondent No.2 by not delivering the possession of the schedule properties, not only that when she requested for delivery of possession of the schedule properties, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences. Though the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are close relatives, he deceived ttre de-facto complainant even after receiving consideration of executed gift deed and same was cancelled unilaterally. These disputed facts requires thorough investigation as the case is at initial stage, those disputed facts cannot be decided in quash petition. Hence, considering peculiar facts and circumstances o[ the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this stage and the same is liable to be dismisserl. 8 Accor<lingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscrllaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal shall sla.d t'losed. _petition //TRUE COPYII To, sD/- MoHD. rsMArL EF'UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER --_---- I 1 The Judicial t\4agistrate of First Class, Metropolitan Magistrate 2. The Station House Officer, police Station, 3 rwo CCs to the puBlrc 4. One CC to SRt CH JANARDHAN REDDY ddvocate topljcj 5. One CC to SRt SRt KRTSHNA SHARMA Advocate tOpUCl' 6. Two CD Copies llgg-qcglgR, H6rr court at Hyderabad (oUT) W Tpk/gh HIGH COURI- DATED:2810312025 ORDER CRLP.No.364 of 2015 cr.< TtlE s14 i4: 20JUllzffi o ( P C, t //.Y I ((?v \ CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED