The High Court · 2025

Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Proseculor i on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Dida Vijaya Kurr ar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: '1026 OF 2025 Between: K,Bhagya Laxmi,, D/o. K.Durga Prasad, Aged 42 years, ,:)cc Housewife, R/o H.No 8-2-686/M/1 , 2, 3, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/A2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor of High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Sri Syed lsmail, S/o. Syed Yousuf, Aged 43 years, Occ Business, R/o. H,No. 1 -1 2-1 57i3l1, Raghavendra Nagar, Sitaphalmandi. Secunderabad. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th: High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 990 of 2023 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally. ...Respondents LA. NO: 2 OF 2O2!' Petition under Section 58 of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the tligh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No. 990 of 2023 on the file of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing :he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumerts of Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri Dida vijay Kum;rr, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: t t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.314O and, LO26 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.1026 ol 2025 is liled bv accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.3l40 ol 2025 is filed bv accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C. No.99O of 2023 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Mngistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally (for short 'the Trial Court'). Both the Criminal Petitions are arising out of the same Calendar Case; hence, both the petitions are disposecl of b_v this common order

2. These Criminal Petitions arc filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS') by the petitioners-accuscd seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.990 of 2023 on the fiie of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, C-vberabad at Kukatpaliy for the offences under Sections 379, 42O and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Pcnal Code.

3. Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri E.Ganesh, learnec'l Assistan t Public- 2 Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I - State and Sri Dida Vija-va Kumar, learned counsel for respc,rrdent No.2-

4. Br-ie f facts of the case are that on t)6 .O7 .2022 at about 18.3O hours, the Sub-lnspector of police, Madhapur Police Station, received private complaint uide Lr.Dis.No. 854/2022, dated 14.06.2022, wllich was ref:rred from the Court, liled by respondent No.2 /complerinant. The allegations made against the petitioners in t-he complaint are thirl , in the month of November 20 15, thr: complainant approached accused No.2 and requested her to lcase out open Iirnd premises bearing No.l 90i2Al73 and 190/2A174, Khanamet, Madhapur, Sr:rilingampally Manda l, to start car garage. Accordingl-v, tht: complainant and accused No.2 entered into a lease agreement dated

10.12.2015 in the name of M/s. New Qualitv Care. The complainant paid a refundable advance of Fls. I 0,80,000/ - and tht: monthly rent was lixed at Rs. I ,8,t,O00/-. The complzrirrant commenced construction o[ a shed for the car garage after obtaining a loan lrom Indiarr Banl<, [(oti Branch. Hyderabad. He purchased all thc colr struction I ! I -) material required for the shed for an amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-, which were kept at the leased prcmises.

5. While the said construction rvas in progress, the Municipal Authorities demolished the shed on two occasions, leaving the construction material lying at the premises since April 2017. On 24.O4.2022, accusecl No.l, with the assistance of accused Nos.2 to 4, allegedl,v stole the construction material and sold it as scrap. When the complainant confronted them and demanded them to return the construction material, they threatened the complainant with dire consequences and clemanded to withdraw the police complaint. Hence, accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed the offenses under Sections 379, 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

6. Thereafter, investigation was conducted. LWs. 1 to 8 were examined, their statements were rccorded and charge sheet was flled uide C.C. No.990 of 2023 before thc learnecl Trial Court. While the case is pending trial, accused No.2 filed Crl.P.No.1026 of 2025 and accused Nos.3 and 4 filcd l .l Crl.P.No 3140 of 2025 for quashment of the proceedings in the said calendar case

7. Mr Vivck Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, submitte d that civil proceedings in O.S.No.7,-t of 20 19 are pending belore the Trial Court, which was initiated by thc complerinanl. Hc contended that by supltressing the pendenc'r- o[ the said civil suit, the compl:iLnant liled :I private crin.rirral complaint dated 20.11.2019, which is still pending. Learned counsel further submitted that multip'le complait-r ts \\,e re subsequently filed on 04.O2.2O2O,

22.O7.20'22 and 23.O7.2022. Learned counsel submitted that a ba rc reacling of the initial complaint dated '2O.1 1 .2O 1 9 r,i,ould reveal that the allegations therein have merell' been reiterated in the subsequenl- complaints u,ithout an-\; new material or factual developme nts. il . Lr:arnr.d cor;nsel has drawn the atten tion of th is Court to thc list of documents at Sl.No.12 annexed to the compl;rinl to submit that the complainant himself has admittecl th;rt the photographs of the leased prr:mises shou, the propcrt-r rvithout an_y material, hence it is an admitted l ) fact that the said premises had already been vacated and that no material was left behind. In the light of the said fact, the subsequent complaints regarding theft or removal of the materials from the premises do not arise and are vyholly untenable. He would further submit that conducting further investigation at the behest of the complainant and filing charge sheet is -"vithout an]' application of mind by the respondent- Police. Thc respondent- Police failed to consider whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 379, 42O and 506 read u,ith 34 ol IPC lvere made out or not, and subjecting the petitioners to trial r.l,ould amount to abusc of process of iaw. Learned counsei vehementlv contended that the investigation appears to have been carricd out solely at the behest of the complainant, with an intention to harass the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed this Hon'ble Court to quash the criminal proceedings and allorn, the criminal petition.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that it is an admitted fact that the 6 --'l complilinant and accused No.2, who is the lancllady, had enterecl inro lease agreement dated 10.12.2015, and the terms ilnd conditions of the said agreement '^rere mutually agreed r.rpon, conferring rights on both parties to enter and use thc premises. It is lurther submitteci that on the assurance given by the landlady, the complainant undertook the construction of a shed or the leased premiscs and he invested a substantia amount of Rs.l.20.t)0,000/- by obtaining loan from diffcrent finalcial institulions;. While the construction was in progress, the Municipal rllrthorities have demolished the slructure. It is further srrbmitted that despite the derrrolition, the constrttction materiai procured by the complainant remaincrl al the premises and he suffere:l substantial financial losses on account of demolition, intr:rest on loans and relalcd expenses

10. Lcarr.ed counsel for respondent \o.2 further subm ittcd that the landlady, despite not having any legai ownership or title to the property, assured the complainant that thcre was no prohibition on construction. It is i 1 submitted that knowing full-y well that such construction could not be carried out legally, the landlacly misrepresented facts to the complainant and such conduct amounts to deliberate misrepresentation and cheating, leading to continued harassment. 1 1 . Learned counsel further submitted that subsequently, disputes arose regarding the pavment of rent and the compiainalrt, already under financial distress, rvas further aggrieved u,hen the landlady and other accused stolen the construction material worth Rs.1,20,00,0OO/ from the premises. Accordingly, the complainant lodged several complaints with the respondent-Police, but no effective action u,as taken, allegedly due to the influencc wielded by the accused persons. Consequently, the complainant liled a. private complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Junior Civil Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Prasanth Nagar, Kukatpally, seeking investigation into offences under Sections 379, 42O and 506 read with Section 34 of lPC. lt is submitted that the learned Magistrate referred thc s .l .l matter to the police for investigation. lt is submitted that the Poiice conducted an enquiry, coller;ted evidence, recorcled tl-re statements of relevant u itnesses, and ultimately filed a charge sheet before the competent Trial Court.

12. Lear:rcd counsel for respondent No.2 further subrnitted that tl-re photographic evidence tras also been subrnittcd rvhich clearlv shows the constru r:tion material lying at the premises and its subsequent removal, substantiatir-rg the complainant's allegations i 3. Learned counsel further submit:; that the complainant has also filed a suit uide O.S.No '7O of 2019 on the file ol the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District al Kukatpally, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction arrd the said civil suit is pending adjudication. Learned cr)Lrnsel submitted that when both civil and criminal proceedings are pending, any interft:rence by this Hon'ble Court at this stage would be prt:mature and unjustified. He placed reliance upon the juclgment of the Hon'l>le .{pe.r Court in case ol Mohd Allau,ldin Khan v ,7 9 State of Bihar, u,herein the Apex Court has clearlSr held that rvhen a trial is pending and there exists pima facie material, interference b_y the High Court is not warranted. Paragraph Nos.9, 1O and i 2 of the said judgment states as under: "9. First error is that the High Court did not examine the case with a uieu, to find out as to whether the allegations made in the comploint prima facie make out the oJfences falling under Secliorus 323 and 379 read tuith Section 34 IPC or not. Instead the High Court in para 6 gaue tnportance to the fact thctt since there was a dispute pending bettueen the porties in the ciuil court in relotiort to a shop as being landlord and tenant, it is essentiallg a ciuil dispute between the parties. It is on this ground, the High Court proceeded to quash the complaint. This approach of the High Court, in our uietu, is faulty. 1O. Though the lligh Couft referred to the laut laid doun by this Court in State of Haryana u. Bhajan Lal but failed to applg the pinciple laid doun therein to the facts of this case. 1 1 . The High Court failed to see that mere pendencg of a ciuil suil is nof an answer to the question as to u.thether a case under Sections 323 and 379 read uith Section 34 IPC is made out against Respon-dents 2 antd 3 or not.

12. The Higlt Courl should haue seen that u.then o specific gieuance of the appellant in his complaint uas that Respondents 2 and 3 haue committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 379 read uith Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these tuo offences in the complaint or not. Ir7 other utords, in order to see I Io LL'hether dnA pima focie case against tlte accused fctr taking its cognizance is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegatiors rnade in. the complaint. In the absence of ang fincling rercorded by the High Court ott this materiaL question, the intpugned order' is legally urtsustainable- "

14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor zrlso supported the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 arrd sLlbmitted that a thorough inveritigation \\,as conductedi necessary witnesses have been cc,llected and all the statements of witnesses thus demonstrate committal of crime b1' the petitioners. He further submitlr:d that it is a matter of trial, hence, indulgence of this Court at this stage, does not yield any result, hence, seeks, to permit the learned Trjal Court to conduct through trial. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss these criminal petitions

15. Having heard both sides and examininfi the material, this Cor,rrt finds that the FIR was registerecl based on a private complaint referred b,v the Trial Court Investigation led to the examination ol eight n,itnesses. L,Ws.1 and 2, indeper-rderrt witnesses, stated that on 24"O4.|1022, accused persons stole construction material using zL gas cutter. LWs.3 and 4 admitted that, on instructions from Accused No.l, they cut and removed iron rods on 2O.O7.2O22 LWs.5 and 6 witnessed the seizure. LW.B is the Investigating Officer. Horvever, the initial complaint was liled on 20.1 1 .2O 1 9 for an incidcnt aliegcdly occurring before that date, but FIR was registered much later and this delay raises serious doubts. The alleged thelt post- I 2Ol9 appears to have been covered under the same complaint vvithout fresh FIRs. The confession recorded by the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court is relied upon by the Supreme Court decision in Stcte of Haryana u, Bhajan LcI, u,here it was held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be invoked to prevent abuse of process. Guideline No.7 from that judgment is applicable: "Where a ciminal proceeding is manifestly attended u.tith mala fide and/ or uthere the proceeding is maliciouslg ittstituted uith an ulteior motiue for wreaking uengeance on the accused and uith a uieu.t to spite him due to piuate and personal grudge." I I I t I As 1:er the said Guideline, this Court is of the opinion that no pritna facie case is made out against Accused Nos 2 to 4, and subjecting them to trial would amount to abuse of procr:ss. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.99O of 2023, pending on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, against petitioner- accusecl Nos. 2 to 4, are hereby quashed. Ilowever, it is open to respondent No.2 (the complainant) to pursue remedies concerning subsequent complaints in accordance u.ith lau,

76. As a result, these criminal petitions are allowed. As zr sequel, miscellaneous applications l- any, stands clo sed SD/- N. cHAIIDRA SEKHAR RAO I]EPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// \,tEcTtoN oFFtcER \ To, Commissionerate.

1. The X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally. 2. The Station House Officer, Madhapur police Station Cyberabad 3. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, state of rerangana, High court Buirdings, 4. One CC to Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to Sri Dida Vijaya Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad (OUT) DL/PSL I I _za-_aa::-:: - . .i:i t,.y li'.;;,,: - -. \ '.. '/' ' . 1 7 0t1 2$25 E '.. /J::.-. ..-- -::\:-::: ..' .. -._-_-.:. '-:.-,.i" \; -,/ \' '-:,((:\i, 'v '!. -.2 ll .()l/ :.i.,t HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/20:25 COMMON ORDEIT CRLP.Nos.3140 ancl 1026 ot2025 ALLOWING THE CR]MINAL PETITONS