The High Court · 2025

8. Mr. Ravulapalli Prasad, Sio. Not Known, age not known, Occ not known, R/o. Maheshwaram Village, Rangareddy District, Telanagana.

9. Mr. T Sharavan Kumar Goud, S/o. Not Known, age r tt known, Occ. not known, R/o 23 HtG BHFJ_ Comptex, Totem Banj-ia, f oaO no.ih eJn;ara* Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana.

10.Mr. M Jay_ant Babu, S/o Not Known,_age Not known l:c. Not known, R/o. 23 HIG BHEL. Comotex, Totem aa"nlara, RoiO r., fa -eaniar; 'Hilli, Hyderabad, Telangana.' 11 Ms DA. Padmavathi, D/o. Not Known, age not knorr r. Occ. Not known, Director of K.p.s prolects private Limited]-nlo. Frit b. 402, piainlniri Towers. Plot No. B. Hyderabad, T;l;"g;;;--'

12.Mr. Daggubati l<oleshwara^ Rao, S/o. Not Known, a3) not known, Occ. Known, R/o. B-2-2B7t11N1Or, Tbtem aanlara noal f[ i4,'A;ij'ji] n"ifi, Kairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.

13.Mr. Bobbili Javabharat ng-d.!y, Sjo B. Damodar Reddy age 33 years, Occ. rua,ii, Business, Rro H.r.ro.s_o_ogiBiz, FLiuo Soi,lv.'h111: ;""w Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana. -A"i"ti

14. Mr. Masaaram Sudhakar Goud, S/o. Masaaram Rama l.i ,taiah Goud age not Known, Occ. Not known, R/o H No 3 7/2, frdanifyi", ruguda, Kalwiioie, Mahaeshwaram Mandal, Ranga neaOy, felingan;. ''-

15. Mr Kondapalty Sridhar Reddy, S/o. . K.Venkat Reddy, I /a 45 years, OCC. Authorized signatory, ErpL constructions- r',ro. ritalot r-nlo r[] No.-i05, 2LH, Lanco Hitls, Minikonda, puppataguda, ning?re'dd) ...Not Necessary parties/Respondents/,\ )cused Nos.2 to .ls lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 397 (1) cr. p.c praying that i 1 the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the righ court may be pleased to Suspend the Order in Crt.S.R No.3369/2023 Dt. 1t 91.2924 passed by of xvll Additional Metroporitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, F.i nga Reddy District pending disposal of the present Criminal Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD LATEEF ANSARI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.ARUN KUMAR (ADDIT ( INAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) I The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COTIRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TTYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3G) of 2024 29.t22025 Betseen: Dastagir Shareef. AND The State of Telangarta, Through Police Station l,'! : hcsl-lvaram, Ralga reddY District, Tci:' ng' r na, Rep by Public Proseclttor &' l)t[]ers' PETITIONER RESFONDENTS ORDER This criminal r,-'visiort case is fiied try the revision petitioner being aggrit'r'eil b;'' orclet dated 17'0 t'2O24 passed in Cr1.SR.No.336 9 of 2023 on the hle of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, l"'1ahe sltwararn, Rauga Reddy District' I

2.ThebrieffactsofLheCaSearetlratthecomplainantlrleda private complaint in Crl-S R No 31169 of 2023 under Section 20O Cr.P.C., alleging cotnmission of various offences under the Indian Penal Code ant'l S':c.tions 81 ancl 82 of the Registration Act by A1 to A14, $'iih 'r ir; e+cr i.'-; refer the complaint to the I J x 2 SHO, Maheshwaram for investigation under I ection 156(3) Cr.P.C. The case of the complainant, in substan::, was that he and one Muzaffar Hussain Khan rvere the absol; -e owners and possessors of the pe tition schedule lands, having, turchased the same in the year 2005 under Agreements cf Sale-cum- Irrevocable General Power of AttorneS.. It w:: alleged that despite subsisting stay orders grantcd by thc {igh Court in earlier writ proceedings and despite the lands br i rg reflected as prohibited properties, the A.P. Bhooclarr Boar: and revenue authorities illegally treated the land as Bhoorl:L r land, issued passbooks in favour of private rndividuals, r nd facilitated successive transfers culminating in cxecution r,i sale deeds in favour of A12 to A14. It was further allegcd hat though a complaint was given to the police and acknov ledgment was issued, no FIR rvas registered, cornpelling tht' r cmplainant to approach the Court.

3. The trial Court recorded the sworn st r ement of the complainant under Section 20O Cr.P.C. and franL, d the point for a consideration as to whether the complainant r as entitled to have the private complaint referred to the SHO Maheshwaram for investigation. Upon detailed considcration, it vas notecl that the documents relied upon by. thc compl.r nant, namely Agreements of Sale-cum-l rrevocable Ceneral pou er of Attorney, 3 did not convey title and, therefore, the complainant's claim of absolute ownership and locus standi itself was doubtful. It was found that the alleged "caregorical directions" of the Revisional Court for investigation into nrultiple offences werc not borne out from thc certified copy of thc order produced. Further, though severai offences were mechanically listed against A1 to A14, the complaint and the sworn statement lacked specific factual averments, overt acts, and neccssary allega[ions of criminal intent attributable to the a<:c:usecl. It was observed that multiple writ petitions were alreadl' pending $.ith respect to the subject land and that the dispute essentially pertained to civil and statutory issues concerning title rend alleged illegal transfers by a statutory body.

4. On an overall appreciation of the complaint, sworn statement, and documents, the trial Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out for directing investigation under Section I56(3) Cr.P.C., as the allcgations were vague, omnibus, and devoid of material par[iculars constituting the alleged offences. Holding that the private complaint lacked merits and that the appropriate remedy lav elsewhere, the trial Court dismissed the private complaint. Flence, this revision case. I I I I r 4

5. Heard Sri Lateef Ansari, learned cou - sel for the petitioner, Sri Manik Rao, learned counsel for resp tndent No_2, Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel lor respondcr t Nos.13 and 14, and MS. Achyuth Bhari-rclu'aj, learne<l counsel for respondent No.15.

6. Learncd counsel for the revision petitioner:,r bmitted that impugrred order datecl 17 .O7 _2024 passed in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 is illegal. impr-oper, rr corrt:ct, trnd contrary to tlri-' setLled print:rpics ol-crirninal larr and crintrnal jurisprudence. Ht: 66p1"116ccl that instead of < cnlining Lhe scrutiny to the existence of cognizable offenc-es r r I compliance with Sections I54(1) and 15a(3) Cr.P.C. u'hile cx r.ising pus.er under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. the r_rial Cotrr r crroneously ventured into appreciation ol' docrrrnents, tille tr _hc propcrty, locus standi cI Lhe complainant, anci allcged absrn re of crirrrinal intent, which is whoily imperrnissible at the pr. invcstigation stage. He averred that the trial Ctourt failed to a[ preoiatc that the complainant never sougl'rt tal<ing of cogniz: I ce, but only I prayed for enlirrcement of statutory duty of the p< I ce to register an FIR and invesligate the offenccs clisclosed in thc conrplaint.

7. He inccssantly contendcd thal- the triat Co. rt compk:tely ignored binding and relevanr ordci.s passed in Crl R.C.No.27 of 2023 dated ()8.0J.2O23 in Ctri.M.p.No. i33 of 2(r 13, ,rr-rler. .n 5 W.P.S.R.No. 11844 of 2023 dated 17 .04.2023, registration of FIR No.83 of 2023 dated 13.O3.20'23, and orders in Crl.S.R.No.243 of 2023 dated 22.02.2023, ali of which established the complainant's locus and the existence of serious allegations warranting investigation. [{e lamented that despite these orders, the learned Magistrate wrongly doubted the Iocus of the complainant and made conclusive findings as though adjudicating the merits of the case, thereby assurring the role of an investigating agency and grantir-rg a clean chit to the accused at a pre-investigation stage.

8. He asserted that the learned Magistratc erred in hotding that the complaint was devoid of rnaterial particulars and in commenting upon the absence of prima facie case and criminal intent, without assigning cogent reasons and without considering the sworn affidavit and the material documents filed along with the complaint. He pointed out that the impugned order is conspicuously silent with respect to offences under Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act, despite specihc a pleadings and documents showing prohibilcd transactions of land clairned by the Bhoodan Board. The endorsement and undeitakings contained in the l-egistered sale deeds themselves, making the executants tiable for critninal action in Lhe event of false declarations, n,ere completely overlooked. Therefore, he t I 6 prayed that this Court to set aside the order dat,: I lT .OL .2024 passed in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 by allowing this revision

9. 17 .O1.2024 Revis on Case is tl-rc 'csponden ts, Magistrate, Learnccl counsel appearing for respectively, sLl bmitted that the Criminal devoid of mer-rl s and the impugned order date i passed by thc learned XVll Additional MetropoliG r Maheshwaram, in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 is tegat propcr,:rnd r,l.cll reasoned. It rtas contendccl th:rt [[re Mzrgt: r.atc rigl_rtl,1, cxcrcisecl discr.etrou under Scctrons 20O zrrrd 156(3 i.r.p.C. afier applying judicial mind to the coneplaint and the documents fited. 'lhe power under SecLion 156(3) Cr p.C. being discretionarl , '.he Magistratc is not bound to mech i nically refer eveqv complaint to the polir:e. Thc issue raised b_r the revision petitioner regnrding lack of potver of the Magistrarr to examinc the complaint at the pre_invcstigalion sjtage is r r longer re s integra and is squarely covered by thc judgments t I the Hon,ble Supreme Cou rt in Maksuci Saiyed v. State of ( trjarat and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.p. a

10. It was ar.erred that the revision petitioner li.s no locus standi, as he is not the owner of the subject land rLrr, . relies only on Agreemenr s of Sale-cum,()pA, u,hich do not co 3r title and werc subseqrrr:ntly cancelleri. Thc rcspondents atr bona flide 7 purchasers under valid registered sale deeds and pattadar passbooks were issued after due process. It was also submitted that civil disputes regarding the same subject lald are already pending before competent civil Courts and that the revision petitioner is attempting to give a civil dispute a criminal coiour. Therefore, they prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal revlslon case.

11. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on r-er:orcl, it is notcd that learned counsei for the revision petitioner contendcd that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by cmbarking upon an appreciation of title, locus standi, and criminal in[ent at the pre rnvesligation stage, thereby, virtually adjudicating the merits of the allegations, whereas, the learned counsel for lhe respondents, rcspectively, justihed the irnpugned order contending Lhat the Magistrate is duty bound to apply judicial mind uncler Sections 2O0 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that the complaint does not disclose any prima facie case warranting investigation. Thus, the core a controversy revolves around the scope and limits of enquiry to be undertaken by a Magistrate rvhile dealing with a private complaint seeking referencr: to police under Sec lion 156(3) Cr.P.C. 8

12. The legll position is rvell settled that at lle stagc of consideration of a complaint under Section 200 []r.P.C. read with Section t56(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is req - red to apply judicial min<l .rnd cannot act as zr rriere post officc r- fonvarcling agency. Hou.cvcr. such application of mind i:, confined to examining u,lrcther the informertion placed be[r,i : the Court discloses the commission of a cognizable offcn - . !\,arranting investigation lr_r, t he police. Thc scope of suc -l pre limintrry scrutiny or enrluirv is limitcrl ancl is not meant i r testing the truthfulness, ,ir)rrectness, or otherwise of the alleg: ,ions, nor for undertaking a rovirrg enquiry into disputed que s ions of fact, title, Iocus srandi, or civit rigl^,ts of the parties. Thr' Magistrate is also not expcctcd to assess the sufficiency of r, idence or to render findinqs touching urpon criminal intert w.hich are matters sqLr.rlr'iv lrrlling w,ithirr the domain of invr:,, gatiorr.

13. The puil>ose of the initierl enquiry'at this s, gr: is only to ascertain whcr her the information received, if t tken at face value, reveals thc r:ommission of an-r. cognizabl(, i fli:nce. Thcre I is no doubt that rvhile the Magistrate has to 211,1 ly his mind, such applicatiorr must remain wilhilt the perrnjss ble contours of law. Tl-rc \,lagistra[e cannot, under the guis t of applying mind, virttraik, concluct a mini-l.rial or retu. 1 conclusivc findings on nrerits, thereby foreclosir.rg irrvestiga I r n altogether. \ \ -9- In other words, while the Magistrate cannot be a mere postman, the Court must also strictly adhere to tJle limited scope of enquiry envisaged under Sections 2OO and 156(3) Cr'P'C'

14. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court went beyond ttre permissible scope of enquiry by entering into issues relating to title, locus standi, civil nature of the dispute, and alleged absence of criminal intent, and by recording findir-rgs which are in the nature of final conclusions. The allegatiolrs in the complaint, whether ultimately sustainable or not, are specific and particular' and their veracity or otherwise could only be tested by a proper investigation. At the stagc at rvhich the complaint was considered, the trial Court rvhs only required to examine whether the allegations disclose any cog-nizable offence and not to decide the merits of the <lispute' In view of the above legal principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned oider dated 17 -Ol 2024 suffers frorri jurisdictional infrrmiQl and warrants interference' a

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of' setting aside the order dated 17 'Ol '2024 passed in Cr1.S.R.No.33 69 of 2023 by the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District' and \ -10- remanding the matter to the trial Cour[ for fresh: ljudication in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed To, 3D/. MOHD. ISMAIL t) :PUTY REGISTRAR \ L- //TRUE COPY// \ . ] SECTION OFFICER

1. The XVll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwa -am, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Junior Civil Jude, Maheshwaram. 3. The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram police Statir L Rachakonda. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the rj ate of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUT] 5 One CC to SRI MOHD LATEEF ANSAR|, Advocate [OF,l rC] 6. Two CD Copies I.wB/PSL I t HIGH COURT DATED:2911212025 'l. tt'tts 2 tiAr{ 2026 ( O * z. c)x ..ii' \.:i' \I l'-"' t.l -/t- i.- ORDER CRLRG.No.300 of 2024 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE a ,\ g