The High Court · 2025

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 order of cognizance taken against petitioner/A4 in C.C No. 70 of 2022 pending on the file of Hon'ble Il ACMM court at Hyderabad which was upheld by Hon'ble lvlSJ, Hyderabad in Crl.R. P No. 63 ol 2022. LA. NO: 1OF 2023 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 of all further proceedings including the appearance of petitioner/A4 in C.C No 70 of 2022 pending on the file of Hon'ble ll ACMIVI Court at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SYED OSMAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri S- Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADISFI)EVI C_IiII\4INAL PEI-ITION No 836 of 2023 ORDER This Crrminal Petrtion is filed by the petrtjon:,-accused No.4 seeking to set aside the order of cognizance taker against him in C C No 70 of 202? on the file of the learned ll I ddrtionat Chief Metropolitan Magistr ate at Hyderabad, whrch was uphe c by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in CRL.R F, \o 63 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 420 of the Indiar renal ccde (for short'lPC')

2. Heard [\4r Syed Osman learned counsel for r , petttioner and Mrs. S.Madhavr, learned Assistant public prosecutor af rearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy l:arned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the accused Nos and 2 entered into agreement of sale with the respondent No 2 and fl-< accused No.2 executed a document on 26.11 201g for purchase of the touse property for a total consideratlon of Rs.39 Lakhs and the respo r ient No.2 paid advance amount of Rs 5 Lakhs, subsequently in the mo- h of February, 2020, the respondent No.2 planned to go for Umrah pilcr mage then the accused Nos.1 to 3 went to the respondent No 2 offlce a,r i demanded to € pay further amount but the respondent No.2 stated that he is going to Umrah and once he returned from Umrah pilgrimage he will pay and after return also the accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded some more amount, accordingly the respondent No 2 paid an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs on

04.022022, both the accused Nos 2 and 3 executed receipt and the accused No.'l stood as attesting witness to the second receipt also but when the respondent No.2 came back, he came to know that the property registered in the name of the accused No.4 That as per the respondent No.2, the accused Nos 1 and 4 stood as attesting witnesses to the document and he being the neighbour very much aware of the execution of agreement between the respondent No.2 and the accused Nos.2 and 3 and desprte the knowledge, the accused No.4 purchased the property. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court is against the principles of natural justice and no valid reason was given by the trial Court in passing the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitroner is a bonafide purchaser and after paying an amount of Rs.39,15,000/- through account payee to the vendors, the petitroner got registered the sale deed in his favour on

09.08.2021, but the respondent No.2 by keeping the same in his mind and bore grudge against the petitioner herein and lodged a false complaint He further submits that the concerned police closed the FIR as the dispute is crvil in nature He further submits tri t after filing the protest petition by the respondent No.2, the learned tri I Court recorded his sworn statement but there is no whisper with regar j to the alleged cheating by the petitioner. as such the order passed br,the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court is illegal anrl liab{e to be set aside The cognizance order against accused No 1 in C ) No 70 of 2022 has already set aside by this Court in CRL p.No.4011 ot '.022 Since the petitioner-accused No.4 also stands on the same footi I I he prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court a; well as learned revisional Court

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant publi, prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 co rtended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint are subject mattrrr of tr ial, and the learned trial court as well as learned revisional court ri: rfly passed the orders Accordingly, they prayed to dismrss the petition

6. A bare perusal of the record discloses that ( spondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 22.0g.2021 before the statior House ofticer, Afzalgunj Police Station Upon completion of investigation the police filed ,civil a final report referring the case as rn nature, Aggrier r d by the same, the complainant filed a protest petition on 1 5. 1 1 .2021 bet rre the learned trial Court. After recording the sworn statement of the r:, mplainant, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence against accused Nos.1 to 4 which reads as follows Heard. Perused the contents of complaint and statement. prima facie case rs made over against the A'1 to 44 for the offences Hence cognlzance is taken U/s 420 IPC lssue summons to ,A1 to A4 on payment of process. Call on 08-03-2022." 7 . lt is pertinent to note that accused No.1 had earlier filed Criminal Petition No.46.1 1 of 2022, wherein the impugned cognizance order was quashed by order daled 28.04.2023 on the ground that the docket order dated '10 01 .2022, passed by the learned Magistrate. does not reflect that the learned lt/agistrate has grasp of the case and nothing is mentioned in the case regarding the facts, whrch prompted the learned Magistrate to take cognizance. However, it was made clear that the said order would not preclude the learned lVlagistrate from taking cognizance afresh by assigning reasons.

8. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner-accused No.4 moved the revisional court by way of filing criminal Revision petition vide CRL.R.P.No.63 of 2022. On hearing both sides, the learned revisional court vide its order dated 23 09.2022 had dismissed the revision petition upholding the cognizance order passed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner-accused No_4 on the ground that the petitioner-accused =r,;E@'JJ t i i No.4 had knowledge about the agreement in the narne rf the complainant and purchased the subject property However, sucl knowledge of the petrtioner-accused No.4 prior to purchase of the prope- / was not the part of the sworn statement of the complarnant or the prc t :st petition or the cognizance order. Before approaching this Court, the retitio ne r-accu sed No.4 had filed a Criminal Revision Petition, vide CRL : P.No.63 of 2022, before the revisional Court Upon hearing both ; Jes, the learned revisional Court, by order dated 23 09 2022, drsn. r sed the revision petition and upheld the cognizance order passed by [he learned trial Court against the petitioner-accused No.4, on the g - ,und that he had knowledge of the agreement executed in the name I the complainant and had proceeded to purchase the subject propert/ However, such alleged prior knowledge on the part of the petitioner-, :cused No 4 was neither reflected in the sworn statement of the compla r lnt nor menttoned in the protest petition or the cognizance order.

9. A bare perusal of the cognizance order of the I rarned Magistrate demonstrates no independent, proper or cogent r: lsons for taking cognizance. lt is a well-settled principle of law that it r; :he bounden duty of the Magistrate to apply his judicious mrnd and recor i satisfaction as to whether the allegations made in the complaint, on il- r ir face, constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged Furtherr ore. the act of summoning an accused in a criminal case is a r ratter of serious consequence and cannot be undertaken routinely. The criminal law machinery ought not to be set in motion mechanically or in a casual manner. The order summoning the accused must refrect due apprication of judicious mind to both the factual aspects and the legal provisions involved Such non-compriance wrth the procedurar formarities vitiates the cognizance order. '10. ln that view of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned rr/ragistrate has grossry faired to assess whether the allegations rnade in the complaint, even if taken at face value, constitute the ingredients of the offence alleged. Consequenfly, the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed in criminar Revision petition No.63 of 2022by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad upholding the cognizance order dated 10.01 .2022 passed by the rearned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is unsustainable in law, patently illegal, and constitutes a manifest abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the sard order is liable to be set aside and quashed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 23.09 2c22 passed in criminal Revision petition No.63 of 2022 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad upholding the cognizance order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the learned ll Additional chief lvretroporitan IMagistrate, Hyderabad, is hereby I ! I set aside. All proceedings arising there from sh e I stand quashed. However, this order do not precrude the rearned rv i gistrate for taking cognizance against the petitioner-accused No.4 by re,r ording cogent and independent reasons. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications if any, shall stand closed SD/- IU. JAWAHAR REDDY AS{; STANT REGISTRAR C SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// The Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. The ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyd: .abad. The Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station {yderabad. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the 51; te of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) One CC to SRl. SYED OSMAN Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate (Ol) JC) Two CD Copies To 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7 11[/gh $) HIGH COURT DATED:2510712O25 ORDER CRLP.No.836 ot 2023 :". F.o a\ 3 ;t, i0?5 I)ISPOSIN(; OII'I'IIIJ ('ITI,.I)IJTITION o