The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 oF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimihal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against petitioners/Accused No's.2 to 5 in C.C. No. 74 of 2025, Before the Vl Addl. Cheif Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad for{he offences under sections 504. 506 rlw 34 lpC.

1.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 grant stay of all further proceedings against the PetitionersiAccused No's.2 to 5 in c.c. No. 74of 202s, Before theVl Addl. cheif Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences under sections 504, 506 rlw 34 IPC including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No's. 2 to 5. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusirtg the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. CH LAXMI NARAYANA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Bandi Venkat Sai, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3312 OF 2025 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitionets I A2 to A5 in C'C'No-74 of 2025 arising out of FIR No.29 of 2024 on the hle of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally' Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 504' 506 r/w 34 IPC'

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that as per Court referred complaint on 18.01.2024 at l8'OO hours of VI ACMM vide Dis.No.lBO/VI/ACMM/Hyderabadl2O2l by one Mr.Mir Mujahid Ali Mahmood/lna respondent herein, defacto complainant lodged complaint on 13'04'2023 at 18'00 hours with P.S.Langer'House, alleging that he has entered into an agreement of sale with one Mr.Hussain Mohiuddin Ghalib (Al) for purchase of agricultural land admeasuring Acs'2'20 guntas in Sy.No.267/A (part) situated in Mamidpally village, \Balapur Mandal, R.R.District, for total sale consideration of Rs.z;zebo,oO0/-, out of which, the defacto complainant paid an arnount of Rs.44,62,452.gO/_ through RTGS dated 05.05.2022 into the Axis Bank savlngs account of the defacto complainant in 9l501OO22a27g6l. The sale deed was to be executed within a period of L2O days from the date of agreement of sa,le. After completion of stipulated period of 120 days, even though the d,efacto complainant tried to complete the transaction, A 1 avoided the transaction and evaded to reply. Thereafter, A1 alleged to have threatened the defacto complainant through other accused/petitioners 2 to 5 herein, and had been attempting to sell the same subject land to others, despite of executing agreement of sale in favour of the defacto complainant, with a malafid.e intention. It is also stated that A1 had permanent residence in U.S.A at Chicago and he may abscond to USA, after collecting huge sums of money by cheating innocent people, to escape legal proceedings in India. The defacto complainant got knowledge that A t had involved in several other crimes. While the matter stood thus, A 1 engaged the petitioners/A2 to A5 to eliminate the defacto complainant. \ I i I I j Page 3 ol7

3. When the matter has taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have got no relation to the said crime. He submits that the petitioners are neither vendors nor vendees to the alleged agreement of sale between the defacto complainant and A1. Only on the basis of mere allegation, subjecting the petitioners to criminal proceedings would amount to violation of rights conferred upon the petitioners under law The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners without there being any agreement of sale in favour of the petitioners, would amount to an abuse of process of law, as such, sought for quashing the proceedings against them.

4. On the other hand, rebutting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Syed Irfan Ahmed, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for the 2"d respondent/ defacto, complainant, would vehemently contend that unless and until trial is allowed to be continued, truth or otherwise cannot be elicited, as such* .,i interference of this Court at this stage 1S premature, not warranted and sought for dismissal of the criminal petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State/ 1"t respondent would submit that the case is only at the stage of investigation and charge sheet has been laid recently and that the petitioners are avoiding to undergo trial proceedings and only by conducting trial, the truth can be elicited. He also submits that as a matter of fact, A1 is still absconding despite efforts made by respondent/ police, Al could not be traced out and he is not coming forward for giving his explanation before the respondent/ police. He also submits that investigation has been continued agarnst the petitionerslA2 to A5 by showing A1 as absconder, as such, sought for dismissal of the criminal Petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/ State, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent and after perusal of the materia-l on record placed before this -7 Page 5 of7 Court, since the charge sheet has already been laid before the trial Court ald proceedings before the trial Court are pending for adjudication, this Court is not inclined to \. interfere with the proceedings before the trial Court. However, the petitioners/A2 to A5 are granted liberty to file necessary application for discharge before the trial Court by raising the same contentions which are raised herein. Upon hling such al application, the trial Court shall consider the I / same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months. 7 . Since the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.2 is aged 66 years, the appearance of the petitioners 1S dispensed with before the trial Court However, the petitioners shall present before the trial Court as and when required, either in person or through an advocate, by filing an application in that regard. Failing to adhere to any of the conditions imposed by this Court, relief granted b5z this Court, shall stands vacated automatically '!

8. With the above direction, this Criminal petition is disposed off. As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SEC Sf6,,,",* To,

1. The Vl Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Langer House, Golconda Division, South - West Zone, Hyderabad District.

3. One CC to Sri. CH LAXMI NARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL HIGH COURT I DATED: 1410712025 ORDER CRLP.No.3312 oI 2O25 iir'- s, ig$ ( a 2I AU8 206 : iJ * t); CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OFF