The High Court · 2025

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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitio ners/accused No.land 2 in C.C No. 2590 of 2022 (Crime No. 296 ot 2017 of PS Bhupalapally, Jayashankar District, TS), pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Bhupalapally, TS, pending disposal of the above criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI M.VIVEKANANDA REDDY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER --=7 r''1 .THE HOI{'BLE SRT JUSTICE J. SREENI VAS RAO CR.INTINA L PETITION No.2640 of :021 ORDER: 'this Criminal Petition has been li ed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash I :e proceedings in C.C.No 2590 ol 2022 on the llle of the Judi: al First Class Magistrate, Bhupalapally, lor the off-ences pur rshable under Sections 420. 465 and 506 of the Indian Penal (l rde, 1860 (fbr short'lPC').

2. The case ol the prosecution in brief is that rr :cused persons offered to sell agricultural dry land to an extent r f Ac.1'00 gts, cornprising Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.29llgl5 and .r.c'0.20 gts in Sy.No.291leo,'4, situated in one compact bloc< at Kompelly Revenue Viilage (formerly within the lim ir ; of Puiluri l{amaiahpalle Gram Panchayat, now within the Bhtr ralapally Town Nagar PanclLayat timits, Bhupalapally MandiL , Jayashankar Bhupalapally District), for valid sale con:ri leration. The complainant accepted the offer. However, after re < eiving the sale consideration, the accused persons failed to execr te a valid sale deed and rnstead threatened the complaina lt with dire 2 consequences if she or her family members approached the said property or demanded retum of the amount. Hence, the present complaint

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration on

13.10.2025, leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2025, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 and the same was returned with a postal endorsement 'addressee refused to receive the same' and filed memo before the Registry on 22.09.2025 vide USR No. 104297 of

2025. He further submitted that as per Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1987, the refusal is deemed to be served. However, to give one more hnal opportunity to respondent No.2, posted to

27.10.2025. On28.10.2025, at request of leamed counsel for the petitioner, the matter was posted to 03.11.2025. Today also, there is no representation for respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits

4. Heard Mr.B.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 . t I a'\

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners subrr tted that the petitioners hare not committed any offences. Even i :cordiug to the allegations rnade eithcl in the complaint or in the cl lrge sheet, the nature of the allcgations against the petitioners is rurely civil in nature. He lurther submitted that the petitioners rLr : the absolute owners of land adrneasuring Ac.i.00 gts in Sy.N,r ;.29llsl5 and 29ll@14, situated at Kompally Revenue Village (herein after relerred to as 'subject property'), and they execu:, d a registered sale deed bearing Document No.2159/2016, datetl 18.07.2016 in favour ofrespondent No.2. Ihe petitioners have nci her forged nor t'abricated an1, documents, and therefore, the ing;:dients of the alleged offences are not attracted. Even as per the :omplaint, one Ms.Sadiq Sultana preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional OlEcer on 10.02.2017 seeking cance lation of the pattadar passbooks issued in lavour of the petitiorr rs, though the said Sadiq Sultana has no right or interest o'r:r the subject propefty.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that rt:r pondent No.2 lodged the present complaint on 12.10.2017, after z lapse of more than one year from the date of execution of the re1;is .ered sale deed 4 { i.e., 18.07.2016. He further submitted that the pendency of revenue proceedings between the petitioners and one Ms.Sadiq Sultana does not give rise to any cause o1'action for respondent No.2 to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners- He further submitted that, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 21.06.2017, the petitioners prefened a revision before the Joint Collector, and the said revision petition was transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal, by order dated 21.02.2021, dismisscd the said revision petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the pctitioners f,led Writ Petition vide W.P.No.22033 of 2022 belore this Cour1, and the saine is pending consideration. lle further subnritted that the petitioners prosecuting the revenue proceedings against Ms.Sadiq Sultana and have never trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 or disturbed her possession. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 herself stated that agents of the petitioners allegedty tried to disturb her possession, but she has not arrayed those persons as accused. Therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. '-'<+'V ,l a. J

7. Pcr contro, the learned Assistant Pullc Prosecutor sul--'mitted that respondent No.2 has nrade spci i ic allcgations against the rctitioners, and Lhe invcstigating Officcr, alter conducting investigation, has tllecl the flnal report i nd the leamed Magistrate has taken cognizancc. lle further subnrit., d that whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offenccs r r not has to be revealed after full-fledged trial. 'l-lrerefore, the pc, i ioncrs are not entitled to see,k quashment ol thc procecdings an,I the pctition is Iiable to be disrmissed tt. I laving considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal ol the mater r I available on lccord, it revcals that the petilioners are claimins ight, title, and interest over tho subject property, and they joi r ly cxecuted a registercd salc deed in favour o1- respondent No.2 rn 18.07.2016 fhere is no specific allegation against the petit r ners that they executed the said registered sale deed without havrr g title over the subject property and there is no specific allegati r r that the said registered sale deed was forged or fabricated by he petitioners. -lhe only allegation levelled against them is that orr Sadiq Sultana tlled an appeal before the Revenue Divisio I rl Officer on 6 C)

10.02.201'7 against the petitioners, subsequent to the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. The record further reveals that, bcrng aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Offlcer dated 21.06.2017, the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 9 ofthe Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97l (as amended), before the Joint Collector. However, in view of the provisions introduced under the Dharani Portat, 2020, the said revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal and thc Special Tribunal dismissed the said revision on 12.10.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.No.22033 of 2022. Upon perusal of the cause title of the said writ petition, it reveals that respondent No.2 has also been made a party respondent therein.

9. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are prosecuting the proceedings initiated by the said Sadiq Sultana in the interest ofrespondent No.2

10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the revenue authorities for mutation of the name of respondent No.2 in 7 the revenue records and lbr issuance of E-Patti< ar I)assbooks, I)ursuant to thcregistcred salc deed dated 18.0'l.20 1( I \ I l. It is alre,ady stated supra that the proceedings nitiated by thc Sadiq Sultana penains only to the issuance ol Pat r clar l)assbooks and mutation of' name of the petitioners in respect of thc subjcct property. W'.P No.22033 of 2022 filed by the Jletiti,r rcrs is pending bclbre this C'ourt. 'fhc orde rs passcd by thc Rcr': rLre l)ivisional Otllcer as rve ll as the Special Tribunal are subje<:t o thc outcorne of the said rvrit petition.

12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is ol he considered view that thc continuation of proceedings against hc yretiticlners/ irccused Nos. and 2 in C.C.No.2590 of 2Q22 or the lile of the Judicial First Slass Magistrate, Bhupalapally, is c;1 : u' abuse of thc process of larv. 'fherefore, while exercising its jur sdiction under Section 482 o: the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the consi lered view that the said proceedings are liable to be quashed, rr Ld accordingly quashed. 13 Accordrngly, this Criminal Petition is allorvc j rc\'* 8 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER I

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhupalapally, Jayashankar District 2. The Station House Officer, Bhupalpally Police Station. Bhupalpally, Jayashankar District

3. One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies VIV/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 031111202s ORDER CRLP.No.2640 of 2021 , .--.. ..--:- , ,,, . .. ,,:\ /!: : L.;, '[ffi ..i. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION e .J