Criminal Petition No. 1136 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings vide FIR No.290/2024 dated 27 /08/2O24On the File of the P.S Bandlaguda, Hyderabad District. I.A. NO: 1.OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 FIR No.290/2024 dated 27-08- 2024 Onthe File of the P.S Bandlaguda, Hyderabad District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R.Bala subramanyam, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K.S.Sunee1, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court ir.ade the follor,ving: ORDER //' '.r. ,tlla t,/ .,4' 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE:VI EADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.1136 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petition_.rs - accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR 1,1o.290 of 2024 on the file of P.S. Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections '194, 205, 406, 420,463, t.64 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code and Section 179 of BNSS.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri R.Bala Subramernyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No .l - State and Sri K.S.Suneel, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioners counsel submitted that the matter is purely of civil in nature and that there are several r:laim petitions pending out of similar transactions and that the pretitioners and de facto complainant purchased the property from tht:r same vendor under an agreement of sale. He further submitted tt,at they filed a suit for specific performance and it was decreed in treir favour and thus, the Court has executeci saie deed in their fav()ur. Now the de facto complainant to settle the scores in the civil case has filed 2 this false complaint implicating them. Therefore, there is no prima facle case against them and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation is taken up in pursuance to the private complaint lodged by the de facto complainant and that charge sheet is filed He further submitted that as per the allegations in the charge sheet, there is prima facie case against the petitioners

4. Perused the record

5. The record discloses that there are civil cases pending between both the parties. The private complaint lodged by the complainant itself points out the said allegations of fabricating the receipt of legal notice. lt is alleged that the GPA holder expired in the year 2007 and that after 17 years, the so called agreement of sale is being claimed and that no notice has been served on the deceased till his death and that the receipt of legal notice is being fabricated.

6. The learned petitioners counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and :!ffy .t 3 othersl . ln the said case, the Apex Court hi,rd elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing the criminal proceedings. ln para 102, the Apex Court enumerated seven caterlories of cases where power can be exercised under Articl€r 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court fcrr quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as follows:- "102. ln the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter Xl\./ and of the principles of larrv enunciated by this Court in rr series o{ decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordrnary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Seotion 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduce,l above, we give the following categories of cases by way ol illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to l:ry down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chanr elised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and tr give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power shoukl be exercised. (1 ) Where the allegations made in the first infornration report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their fac:e value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie co rstitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the flrst informatiorr report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigatior by police officers under Section 156(1 ) of the Code excegtt under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 1S5(2) of the Code. T9ffSuppit.l Supremc Court Cases 335 4 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collecied in support of'the same do not disclose the commission of any ofenct anJmate out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a. police otticer witnout ?l_ 9_ld"l .of a Magiskate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd. and inherenfly improbable on the basis Lf *ni"n no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the - "".r."J. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Ait conceried (undei which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there rs a specific provision in the Code oi the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggriev;j [ady (7) .Wtrere a.criminal proceeding is manifesfly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliiiously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking ,"-ng.an"e on ilie accused and. with a view to spite him Oue tJ private anj fersonal grudge." .7. lt was also held in the said case that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the 5 reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegati,rns made in the FIR or the complaint

8. The learned counsel also relied upon a decis,ion of this High Court in Gampa Krishnamurthy v. State of 7'elangana and anothel , wherein this Court has expressed its disapproval for imparting t:riminal colour to a civil dispute, made merel.V to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a t.:riminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety. By observing so, the criminal proceedings were quashed in the said , I , I

9. However, the Apex Court in Kathyayini v. Sidhafth p.S. Reddf , has helci that pendency of civil proceedin6:rs on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the r:riminal proceedings if a prima facie cas,:: exists against the accused persons.

10. ln the present case, the contents of the conrplaint and the recitals of charge sheet do point out prima facie allegations against ? zoz: 1ry elo 1crl.) 430 (TS) I 2025 I-ivelarv (SC) 7 t2 6 I) the petitioners. However, the record discloses that the FIR is of

11. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to conclude the investigation at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law. Further, the petitioners shall co- operate with the police as and when required for the purpose of investigation. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. V.KAVITHA OEPUW REGISTRAR I \ I I I I t //rRUE coPv/l SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chief ludicial Magistrate' Nampally' Hyderabad' ; iii; il;;;;H;;;" or#;;; ;; ;Ji' fi' a J iofi ce sta tion'- Hvderaba d' ;. d""A;;' s.i n.u"r^ iluiu-ut'yu"'' Aduocate [oPUC] +. O"" CCt. Sri K.S.Suneel, Advocate LOIUCI - ; &IX'EA; il; i,,,uri. P;;;;;-;Hig't' co"i Buirdhgs' Hvderabad KNS8I to\n) 6. Two CD CoPies' JCK/I,SL w -. - .-..-...-: \ .,llr'')\rt t''''-'- " Oil.i ./.;-' iri\ : , 1EsEP2ll25 :i t\.-, . \i..:-, )..-.. .. . ,' : . .ir/' a/ HIGHCOURT DATED:l3/09/2t)25 ORDER CRLP.No.1136 of 2025 Disposing of the Criminal Petition +'{f'' Y;r^c \(rr