The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., PS. Dundigal, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...ResPondent P. R. Sunitha, Wo. P. R. Suresh, Age. 43 Years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/ o. H. No. 11-43, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RespondenUDe facto Complainant 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 charge sheet in CC. No. 14 of 2022, on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2022 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 appearance of the petitioners in CC. No. 14 of 2022, on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M,Rathan Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER t4r.!'!l4_ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CR|MINAL PETITION No.1581 ot 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.14 ot 2022 on the file of the learned XXI ttletropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Cyberabat at Ranga Reddy District registered for the offences under Sections 120(B), 468,471, 420, 506 of lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC').

02. Heard Mlr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 and Mrs.S.lVladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-respondent No.1 as well as Mr.M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 and perused the record

03. Brief facts of the case are that on 01 07.2020 at 11 00 hours, the complainant filed a complaint stating that the children of the complainant are having 200 square yards of property bearing Plot No.60 at Bahadurpalli vide documents No 3530 and 3531, which was purchased in the year 2002 'f he petitioner No.1 is the brother of the complainant Petitioner No.1 colluded with other family members i.e 2 petitioner Nos.2 to 6 hatched a plan to grab the above said property and created fabricated agreement of sale forging the signatures of complainant and her husband By virtue of the said agreement of sale' a civil suit has been filed before the Civil Court and the petitioner No 1 had obtained injunction order and sent a copy of the said injunction order to the complainant, for which, the complainant questioned the acts of the petitioners and the petitioners have abused and assaulted the resPondent No 2 Thereby, she filed the present complaint action against the petitioners-accused seeking necessary Nos.1 to 6

04.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmitsthat petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences He further submits that a civil dispute between the parties to this criminal petition vide O S No 2 87 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri pending for adiudication The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No 2 belongs to one family' All the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos' 1 to 6 appear to be civil in nature The respondent No 2 is trying to give The contents of FIR or criminal colour to the civil dispute charge sheet do not disclose the required essential ingredients i 3 for constituting the alleged offences 120(B), 468,47.1, 420, 506 of lPC. While seeking for quashment of the criminal proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and others etc. v. Stafe of Gujarat and another etc.' wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia at Paragraph No.18 held that: "18. Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit No 105/2015, leave to defend was granted to respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar on 19.04.2016 On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the said Summary Sult No. 105/201 5, four receipts filed in the suit were senf fo the handwriting exped. The handwnting expert has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally wth the sample signatures which were of respondent No 2- Mahendrakumar. lt was only thereafter, complaint was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR No.l-194/2016 was registered on 28.12 2016 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Secllons 406,420,465,467,468,471 and 114 IPC As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, in the Summary Suit No.1O5/2015, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court "whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts". When the lssue as to the genwneness of the receipts is pending consideration in the avil suit, in our view, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the pafties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit " l0lll I.r\r\utr(S( ) ll0 4

05. On the other hand, the learned counsel 'for the respondent No-2 as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State contended there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it isnotafitcasetoquashtheproceedingsagainstthe petitioners at this iuncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full-fledged trial by the trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Crrminal Petition'

06. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side' lt is apparent on the face of the record that the subject property was not in the name of the respondent No 2 or her husband As per the version of the respondent No 2 itself. the property belongs to her children who are malors 07 A perusal of the alleged agreement of sale dated 10.04.2019 discloses it was executed between the respondent No 2 & her husband as 'vendors' and the petitioner-accused No 1 as 'vendee'. When admittedly, the subject property stands in the name of children of the complainant' it is not explained as to how the respondent No'2 and her husband' swi.l 5 and the petitioner-accused No.1 can enter into an agreement of

08. On a careful scrutiny of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that there are previous family disputes between the parties. The alleged agreement of sale appears to be executed in the presence of two witnesses. To prove the veracity of the said Agreement of Sale, the Police did not examine or record the statements of the witnesses of Agreement of Sale. The said lacuna in the investigation is fatal to the case of the respondent No.2. 09 Admittedly, a civil suit seeking specific performance of the said Agreement of Sale vide O.S.No.2B7 of 2019 on the file of learned XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri is pending between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1. When the issue with regard to the genuineness of the said Agreement of Sale is pending for consideration in the civil suit, the same can be ascertained by way of adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence before the Civil Court 10 Except stating that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 have abused and assaulted the complainant and her family, 6 there are no specific instances or descriptive particulars as to in what manner the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 6 have abused and assaulted them. [Vloreover, there is no allegation of common intention among the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 6 with regard to the alleged offences. The respondent No.2 is the sister of the petitioner-accused No.1. lt is an undisputed fact that there are previous family disputes between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1. Therefore, it appears that the entire family members of the accused No..l were implicated, only to setfle the personal scores of the respondent No.2. 11 . On a careful scrutiny of entire charge sheet averments, to prove the basic allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos l to 6 for the alleged offences, there is no single independent wttness examined by the police. Out of nine list of witnesses cited, four witnesses are complainant and her family members, who are interested witnesses. Remaining five witnesses are panch and officiar witnesses. As observed supra, the two witnesses to the alleged Agreement of Sale were not examined by the police which amount to a grave discrepancy in the case of the prosecution. 7

12. ln State of Haryana and others v. Ch. B.hajan Lal and others2 the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held that: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of fhe process of any Court or othenuise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First lnformation Repoft or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R do not disc/ose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Secflon 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code: (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make 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 permifted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated unCer Section 155(2) of the Code; 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335 Y--- \ 8 (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

13. ln the present case on hand, as observed supra, the subject property is not in the name of the complainant and her husband. There is no direcl witness to the occurrence of the alleged offences. AII the allegations appear to be vague and general in nature and without proper evidence. Admittedly, a civil suit filed seeking specific performance of the said Agreement of Sale IS pending between the parties to the criminal petition. The genuineness of the said Agreement of Sale can be adjudicated by the competent jurisdictional Civil Court. There is no proper and cogent evidence collected in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioners- accused Nos.l to 6 Admittedly. there are previous family 9 disputes between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner- accused No.1. Therefore, the present case falls within the ambit and parameters of point No.7 formulated in Ch.Bhaian LaI's case cited supra. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 amounts to abuse of process of law and the sarne are liable to be quashed

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.14 of 2022 on the file of the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Cyberabat at Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed To, //TRUE COPY// I SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DE UTY REGIST ECTION OFFICER

1. The XXI li'letropolitan Magrstrate at ttiledchal Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad. 3. One CC to SRI K VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stae of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. bSM HIGH COURT JS, J DATED: 171041205 + -) c t) i t:tE Sra 14: oY ($ ( a .t 16 JUtl 26 * Dr rn 11r',-1t:\ ORDER CRLP.No.1581 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION S c( bl{