THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMIN AL PETITION No

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusrng the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P SHASHI KIRAN, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri. E GANESH. Assitant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. DAMODAR MUNDRA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMIN AL PETITION No.339 1 of 2 o25 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed under S ection 528 of BNSS, seeking to call for the records in C.C.No' 19' 2 of 2O2l on the I-ile o[ the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum--ludicial Magistrate of First Class at Sangareddy (for short, 'tlLe trial Court') and quash the same.

2. The petitioner herein is accused No.3 and respondent No 2 herein is the complainant before the trial Court. F rr the sake of convcnience hcreinafter parties are referred to as arr:used No.3 and the complainant.

3. The bricf facts of the case are that, the coml Iainant is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.297, adnLcasuring 4O0 sq.yarrcls in Sy. No.966, 967 and' 969/4, situated at Rt:eramguda, Ameenpur Manclal, Sangareddy District, having p urch:rsed tht: same from Dr.Rach Panduranga Rao and others, ride document bearing No.645 of 1984, dated 07.02.1984. The corrplztinarlt Ltscd t() visit th(i plot now and then to take care of it. ,\ccust'd No-2, who is an RTC Conductor has collected the Xero>. r:opv ol sale deed bearing docurnent No.645 of 1984 from accust cl No.4. Later i I I I I I I ! I i : i I I ! I I I i I 2 on, accused Nos.l and 2 with a malafrde intention to grab the subject property prepared fake documents as original documents and accused No.2 has given his photo to accused No.l to impersonate on the photo of the complainant by creating the fake Aadhar card. After preparing the fake documents, accused Nos. 1 to 3 colluded with each other and intimated about the subject property to the brokers, the brokers brought the party, one Vinta Vijayalakshmi, who does not know about the evil intention ol accused Nos.1 to 3, visited the plot and agreed to purchase the same for Rs.16,00,0OO/- and accused No.2 made registration in favour of Vinta Vijayalakshmi and took Rs.16,00,000/-- Thcy divided the said amount among themselves. After that, accused No.4 came to know about the cheatrng committed bv accused Nos. 1 to 3, he hatched a plan to commit another cl-realing by impersonating the LW.4. Meanwhile, he met accuscd Nos.7 and 8 and expressed the said plan, they also agrecd to make sanction the loan with fake documents. On 07.09.2016, :rccuscd No.4 along with accused Nos.s to 8 went to SRO Sangarcddv- :rnd got registered the plot by impersonating accused No.6 as Vinta Vrjayalakshmi by using fake Aadhar Card. L:rter, b-v using the said documents, accused No.5 got bank loan u'ith Lhc hclp of accused Nos.7 and 8. Thus accused Nos. I to 8 comnritted the : i I I I II I 3 offences purlishable under Section l2o(bl ' 419' 42C , 464, 468, 471rlw 34 of IPC.

4. Basing on the contents of above complaint, [nspector of Police, Amer:npur, registered a case in Crime No. I /9 of 2O2l ' under Sectic,ns 120(b), 419,42O,464,468,471 r/w 3't of IPC.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitio rer/accused No.3, learne,C counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearrng for the respondent- S ta te. Perused the record.

6. Learnr:d counsel appearing for the petitioner/ a ccused No.3 would subnrit that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false arLd baseless. It is settled principle of law that even assuming that the petitioner stood as witness to the transactions made lor the subject property, no prosecution can be launched against hrrrL and paying Rs- 16 lakhs to him when the alleged or,t ner himscll \^'as present at the time of registration, is highty impro bable. Lcarnecl counsel lurther submitted that the < omplaint do J ,bt -"k" out any pimct facie case of the alleged offerLces and it is a scttled law that in the absence of pima facie cttse, criminal I i ! !j I i I i I 4 prosecution cannot be launched which is evident in the present case and the same is liable to be quashed.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that the petitioner is also involved in the said fraud played against respondent No.2. Unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted by examining the evidence and facts before it, truth will not be elicited and hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal petition.

9. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosccut{)r vehemently contended that only after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has lrled charge sheet beforc the learned trial Court and the case was numbcrcd as C.C.No. 1942 of 2O2I and the truth or otherwise would bc rcvcaled only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, he prays this Court to dismiss the present criminal petition.

10. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgnrt'r.rt o[ thc Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Cr[.A.No.579 o[ 20 I c.) dated O2.O4.2O19 in the case of Deaendtq Prasad Singh Vs. State oJ Bihar &Anr.' as follows:- I ,+I 5 "12.5o far as the seand ground is concent':d, u.te are of the uieu.t that the High Court uhile heai q the application under Section a82 of the Cr.P.C. htd. no juisdiclion to appreciate the statement of the u.titnesses and record a finding that there tuere inconsistencies it their statements and, therefore, there uas no prima faae case made out aqainst respondent No.2. In our uieut, this aruld be done on.ly m the tnal tuhile deciding the issues on the meits or/ and bg the Appellate Court whtle deciding the appeol aising ouL oJ' the final order passed bg the Tial Cotrt but not in Sect[orL 482 Cr. P.C. proceedings.

13. In uiew of the foregoing discussion, we altou the (lppeal, set oside the impugned order and restc re the aforemt'ntioned complaint co-se lo its onginal file fo- being proceeded witl't on rnerils in accordance uith lau." I 1. Recer.tly, thc Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of lhe vt:nr samc isstte in Crl.A.No. 1572 ol 2019 dated l7.l}.2ol9 irr tlre casc o[ Central Bureau oi Inustlgatlon Vs. Arnind Kha,nna, r'hcrern, it has been held as follows '' 19. A.fier penrsing the lmpugned order t.nd on heaing llu, -subrnission-s rnade by the learned senior counsels ort ltottr sides, we are of the uieu that the impugned order pctsserl bq the lli91h Courl is not sustainablc.. In a petition Jiled rin.lcr Secfion 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court ha.s recordeT Jindingts on seueral disputed facts and allou rcd the petition DeJ'ence of the accusecl is to be teste(l after apprecitLlutq Ilrc etuiclertce durttq lnttl. The uery fact t\at the I : 6 High Court, in this co-se, utent into tle most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.8.1., and the defence put-forth bg tle respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded. rts pouer, ulhile exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2O. In our uieut, the assessment made bg tlrc High Court at this stage, u.then the matter lus been taken cognizance bg the Competent Court, is completelg incorrect ond uncalled .for."

12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.18L7 of 2Ol9 in rhe case of M.Jaga.nthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi {L anr, as follows: "It i.s too late in the dag to seek reference to ang outhoitA for the proposition tlnt uhile inuoking the pouer under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, thc: Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the uaiidity of the euidence auailable. All that the Court should sec is as fo u-thether th.ere are ollegations in the cotnpleiftt tuhich form the basis for tlrc ingredients that cotlstitute certairu offences amplained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) tuheth.er tle preanditions requisite for takig cognizance haue been amplied uith or not; oncl (ii) tuhether tle allegations contained- in the complaint, euen if ctccepted in entiretg, uLould. not an stitute the offence alleged.

13. A look at the amplaint filed bg the appellant uould shotu thot the appellant had incorporated lhe l I I I I I T I I E I i I I t ! |, r : 7 ingredients necessary Jor prosecuting the respond-ent: for the olfences alleged. The Etestion uLhether the appellant u,till be able to proue th.e allegations in a manner knou-n to law u-nuld aise onlA at a later stoge.

13. The :rbove judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petition€r are mixed question of facts and the same cannot be considered in a quash petition under Section 482 otCr.P.Cl528 of BNSS.

14. Considering the submission o[ learned counsel for the parties, the appearance of the petitioner is dispe'-rsed with in C.C.No. 1942 of 2O2I on the file of the learnecl Pri;rcipal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Iudicial Magistrate of First Class al Sangareddy when represented by his counscl on record. The appearance of the petitioner is dispensccl rvith subject to fiting an aflidavit by the petitioner stating that in his:rbsence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be clisputed by him in any manner. However, the petitioner shall appear belore the learn,:d Magistrate as and when his presence is required. In the event of failure of the petitioner to appear u'hcn the Court directs, this ord:r dispensing with his appearitnce stands vacated automatically. E

15. Accordingly, the Criminal petkion is disposed of granting the liberty, as sought for by the petitioner, to file an appropriate application before the trial Court, seeking discharge. Upon frling such application, the trial Court shall examine and pass appropriate orders. However, in view of the urgency expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude trial in C.C.No.1942 of 2O2l as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from today.

16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand ! I closed SD/- L,VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// ._l ICER SECTI To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil J udge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sanga ReddY.

2. The Station House Officer, Ameenpur P S ' 3. One CC to SRl. P SHASHI KIRAN Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for thrc State of Telangana Sangareddy District' 5 One CC to SRl. DAMODAR IVUNDRA Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies MKN I'SI \q-' HIGH COURT DATED: 23106t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3391 of 2025 -1 ,rr'. O( { rtE S .i (i,o' 15 sEP zffi + plTc *fl) t Z .\ i,\r\>l C) DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q@\qt\ *-ro