The High Court · 2025

Sri. Sartaj Hussain, S/o Khaja Peer, Aged about 53 years, Occ - Doctor, R/o H.No.9-6-13/.62, Roshan Vihar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 ...Respondents/Complainants Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for criminal proceedings records in C.C.No.2712 of 2021 , on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Under sections 447,427 lPC, and quash the same against the petitione r/accu sed No.1 . l.A. NO: 'l OF 2023 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 in C.C.No.2712 of 2021 , on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Under sections 447, 427 lPC, and quash the same against the petitioners/ accused No.2 and 3, till pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Harish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER '. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITIION No.2281 of 2O23 ORDER: The present Criminai Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2712 of 2O2l on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard Mr.K.Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.

3. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on Ol.O7.2OlB at about 09.00 P.M., the police, Mailardevpally Police Station, received a complaint from Sartaj Hussain (LW.1) stating that on 17.06.20O8, he purchased plot No.13 in Survey Nos.95/2 and 93 admeasuring 220 square yards, situated at Pa,llecheruvu, Mailardevpally, under registered sale deed bearing document No.3340 of 2008, dated 17.06.2OO8. While so, on 01.O7.2018 at about O5.O0 P.M., when he went to his plot, he found some unknown Z persons criminally trespassed into the said piot and damaged the existing cement piliars and rron shatters Basing on the said compiaint, police have registered a case, issued FIR and investigated into the same. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected the development agreement executed by the accused No.l in favour of accused No.2 in respect of the subject plot entrusting the same to accused No.2 for development purpose.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case only to cause hardship to him. He further submitted that the statements recorded by the investigating officer under FIR under section 161 of Cr.P.C as well as the charge sheet did not attribute the specific overt acts against the petitioner and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehementll. contended that only after completion of the 3 investigation, the Investigating Oflicer has laid the charge sheet before the Court below and the truth or otherwise woutd be revealed only after full-fledged trial' Therefore' he prays this Court to dismiss the petition'

6. A perusal of the statements of the de facto complainant and other witnesses recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr'P'C shows that there a-re material to attract the offences under section 427 and 447 of IPC. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed 1n Cr1.A.No.579 of 2Ol9 dated O2'04'2OI9 in the case of Deaendra Prasad Singl. Vs' State of Bihar &'Anr" as follows:- "12.5o far as the second ground is concerned' u)e are of tLe uieu that the High Court ttthile heaing the apptication und.er Section 482 of the Cr'P'C' had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the u.titnesses and record a finding that there utere inconsistencies in their statements and' therefore' there utas no prima facie case made out ogainst respondent No.2. In our uiettt, this could be done onlg in the tiol uhile d.ecidirLg the issues on the meits or/ and- by the Appeltate Court u-thile deciding the 4 appedl arising out of the final order passed bg the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. 1 3. In uiew of tLe foregoing di.scussion, ute allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its oiginal fite for being proceeded uith on merits in accordance u.tith lotu.

8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2OI9 dated 17.t0.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs, Aruind. Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follon s "19. After petusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the leanted senior counsels on both sides, ue are of the uiew that the impugned order passed bg the High Court is not sustain.able. In a petition filed under Sectiott a82 of Cr.P.C., tLrc High Court hos recorded findinqs on seueral disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused k to be tested after appreciating the euidence during tial. The uery fact tl1rlt the High Court, in this case, uent into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.8.1., and the defence put forth bg the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Couft has exceeded its pouter, uhile exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. f 5

20. In our uiera, the assessment made bg the High Court at this stage, uthen the matter has been taken cognizonce bg the Competent Court, is completely incorect and uncalled for."

9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1B17 of 2OI9 in the case of M.Jaganthi Vs, K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "It is too late in the dag to seek reference to ang authoitg for the proposition that uhile inuoking the pouer under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the ualiditg of the euidence auailable. All thot the Court should see is as fo uthether tLere are allegations in the complaint uhich form the basis for the ingredients thdt corlstitute certain offences comploined of. The Court mag also be entitled to see (i) uhether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance haue been complied u'tith or not; and (ii) u.thether the allegations contained in the -.complaint, euen if accepted in entiretg, toould not i\onstitute the offence alleged.

13. A look at the complaint filed by tle appellant ttould shout that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necesscrry .fo, proseanting the respondents for the olfences alleged- 6 The question uhether the appellant uill be a.ble to proue the allegations in a manner knoun to lantL toouLd arise onlg at a later stage.

10. The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in a quash petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1 1 . In view of the discussion made herein before, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings 1n C.C.No.27l2 of 2O2l on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajencira Nagar. The petitioner/ accused No. 1 is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the triai Court. The personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel. Further the petitioner sha-ll appear before the trial Court as and when his presence is required. i L I I I : I t I I L ! '7 t2 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aly, shall stand closed Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 2 J ^ 4 o ivil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan I Additional Junior C Magistrate, Rajendra Vlll l/letropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad The Station House Officer, Mailardevpally police Station, Cyberabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri K Harish Kumar, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies ry_- ABK./pst HIGH COURT DATED: 2810112025 ORDER CRLP.No.2281 of 2023 3 ,o 5 (r ( /€TI, 04 AUE !.) DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 1N 4