The High Court · 2025

2. Dasoju Srinivas Chary,, S/o. Late D.S. Ramchander Rao, Age. 45. yrs Occ.. Bussiness, R/o. Plot No. 5, Nanuram Colony, LaiBazar, Tirumalgiri, Secunderabad. ... RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLATNANT 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 in C.C.No. 813 of 2020 on the file of XXll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad for the offences under Section 406, 417, 419, 420, 423, 426, 427, 447, 471, 482, 506, 509 rlw 34 of l.P.C. in so far as the Petitioner/Accused No.5 is concerned l.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 including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.S in C.C.No. 813 of 2020 on the file of XXll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad fhis Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing thr: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ANNAPURNA SREERAM ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr V.Jithender Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nc1. and Sri T.Ram Reddy appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER L ) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINA L PETITION No.2132 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioner-accused No.S in cc No.813 of 2020 on the file of the XXll Additionat Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad, for the offences under Sections 406,417,419,420,423, 426,427, 447, 482,506 and 509 read with 34 lPC.

2. Heard Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is a mediator to a land transaction and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant. The contention of the de facto complainant is that accused No.1 has sold away the land more than the extent he possessed and that the petitioner herein has mediated the transaction knowing fully-well about the extent of the land possessed by accused No.1. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner herein has cheated the de facto complainant and got the transaction done. He further submitted that I t \ \ I 2 !-- \*- ErD) Ctl.P. No.2132 of 2025 the petitioner has just facilitated the transaction and nothing more than that. lf at all any dispute exists with regard to the transaction, it should be between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant and not against the petitioner herein. Learned counser further submitted that the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4 were quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that accused No.'l and accused No.5-petitioner herein have acted in collusion and sord the rand to de facto comprainant and that without there being any such land physically, accused No.1 has sold the surplus land to the de facto complainant. He further submitted that petitioner stood as a witness to the document i.e. sale deed under which accused No. j has registered the rand in the name of the de facto complainant, but there is no such land available at the location. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner herein is accused No.5 and is shown as a mediator and commission agent as per the recitars of the compraint as well as the charge sheet. The petitioner himserf has referred as 3 EfO,J Crl.P. No.2132 ol2025 commission agent and a mediator. The allegations in the complaint point out that the accused No.1 has sold the land in excess than what he possessed. Thus, the dispute is between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. The act of mediating the transaction does hot attract the alleged offences. lt is not the case of the de facto complainant that the petitioner has forged any document. The allegations also do not involve any act of the petitioner to say that he was entrusted with some property of the de facto complainant and \ \ that he has misappropriated the same. ( (

7. To attract the offence of cheating, there should be dishonest intention from the inception of the crime. lf at all the petitioner has entertained the dishonest intention from the inception of the crime and if he has known that accused No.1 did not have that much of land as mentioned in the said document, he could not have signed as a witness to the document. Hence, the alleged acts do not attract the offences under Sections 406, 417, 4'19, 420, 423, 426, 427,447,482,506 and 509 read with 34 lPC, which are foisted against the petitioner. lt is also to be noted that the proceeding against accused Nos.2 to 4 were quashed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the petition is entitled to be allowed. \ 4 Crl.P. No.2132 ot 2025 B. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.813 of 2020 on the file of the XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ \ a //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The XXllAddl. Metropolitan Magistrate, [Medchal, Cyberabad 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Medchal , Cyberabad 3. One CC to SRl. ANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. T.RAM REDDY Advocate for R-2 IOPUC] 5. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for tlre state of Telangana at Hyderbad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies AG/PSL t I t HIGH COURT DATED :16t1Ot2O2S 1"rr.i: ::: i',f ,s ,'! ^t 2 [ I'ltu ztfli \ ( ! *f, * ::.:- 116 a1-.ul ,;1) ORDER CRLP.N o.2132 ot 2O2S CRLP IS ALLOWED 1