The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT Smt. Annapurna Raghuram, Wo. B N R?9h91?T,49" about 65.years' occ' t:ii;;j';;i"i;;;". a%. proi r'ro .1 a. D No zi M3l3/3/{, Bramatambika Nasar' n"r'"4 eiSh, fualkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District' .,.RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmay U. pf".""a to call for records and Gtuash the FIR in Crime No 123 ol 2025 on thefileofUppalPoliceSt"tion,Rachakonda,insofarasthePetitioner/Accused No.3 is concerned. t.A. NO :1OF 2O25 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in .the .circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourt.may be pleased to grant .trY ot all further^pr9":*IS" including arrest. of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 il Crime No' 123 ol 2025 on the file of Uppal Police Station, Rachakonda, pending final disposal of the main criminal petition' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALA MALLESHD,AdvocateforthePetitionerandSri.Ir/IVIVEKANANDAREDDY' Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of sri' HARIPREETH RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER ;. ,1/ - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITroN NO.3481 0F 2025 ORDER: This criminal pctition is fi1ed under Section 528 oi Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner accused No.3 in Crime No.123 of 2025 of Uppal Police Station, Rachakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318 (4), 335, 336, 338, 34O (2) r/w.Section 3(5) ol Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that on 25.01 .2025 lhc complainant who is the 2"d respondent herein, lodgcd a complaint before police stating that shc is the absolute ou'ner and peacefui possessor of Plot No.143, Sy.No.661 and 662, admeasunng 2OO Sq yards situated at Baba Nagar Colony, Uppal Kalan, under GHMC Uppal Circle, Uppal mandal. Medchal-Malkajgiri District. It is stated that she purchased the said plot for a valid sale consideration from her vendor through a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1993 and since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said plot. The 2"d respondent has paid LRs vide application bearing 2 No.C/ GHMC/ 022235 I 2O2O dated. 2 1.O9.2020 for reguiarization of lhe said plot which is under considcration. Since then she along with her husband frequently visiting the said plot as such, she got acquaintance with the neighbors of her plot and she informed the neighbours to take care of her plot. On 06.01.2025 at about 11.3O a.m., rhe neighbors informed her that some third parties and ban! officials are measuring her plot and asked her whether she had sold the plot to them. The 2",1 rcspondent informed them that she never sold plot to anyone and requested them to enquire about the persons measuriprg the plot. When enquired, the petitioner obtained the phone number of 2"d respondent, called her and stated that he is the owner of property. The 2nd respondent asked him [o come r.r.ith the documents to the plot on 07.OL.2O2S. On OT _O1.2O2S, at about 10.00 a.m, petitioner came to Lhe said plot and shown some xerox copies of documents wherein, the document No.a998 | 2024 dated O5.OT .2024 shows that one Lolavath Veena has executed a sale deed in favour of Rachala Venkata Ramana and to her utter shock, the page No.g of the said document contains created death certificate of 2ncl respondent and Page No.9 contains one family member certihcate that L.Veena is the only legal heir of 2"d respondent and her :*l 3 husband. Page No.2 of the said document shows that the 2"d respondent died on 26.06.2OOO and her husband died long back and to that extcnt, the GHMC issued death certificate and also got issued famrly member certihcate on 28.10 2004 They have created another sale deed vide document No 93l6i 20 24 d'ated 12.07 .2024 u'ithin one week and registered in favour of thc pe titioner. Hence, L.Veena, R.Venkata Ramana and lhe petitionercolludedu'itheachother,createdthedeathcerlificatc of 2nd respondent and family member certificate as if it was issuecl by ll-re concerned authorities- Basing on the created documents, they have created sale document without having any right, tille and possession over the piot by misguiding the authorities. Then, immediately, the 2'd respondent consLrucLed a v",a11 u,ith precast wall along with gate by mentioning her particulars on the r,r'a11. It is further stated lhat the 2nd respondent worked in ICMR/NIN and retired on 31 O5 2O20 from servicc and since then, she was visiting the plot once in a u,eck along u'ith her husband. Further it is slated that they are not having any daughter by name Lolavath Veena Hence, requested the police to take action against the said persons' Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case against the accused for the above offences. 4

3. Heard Sri D. Bala Mallesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri c.Hari Preeth, learncd counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petrtioner is that petitioner is the absolute owner and purchaser of. the subject plol having purchased the same through registcred salc deed from Rachala Venkata Ramana, who in turn purchased the same lrom Lolavath Veena who is the only daughter of late Annapurna Raghuram. He further contcnded that al.ter perusal of all the original link documents as well as death certihcate of Annapurna Raghuram and her family member certificate issued by the GHMC authorities, he purchased the subject plot. As a bona fide purchaser he made enquiries, visited site along with bank authorities for construction of house. Further, the complainant gave false complaint alleging that her name is Annapurna Raghuram; that she is the owner of subject plot, when petitioner asked her to show the original documents, she failed to show and moreover started demalding for settlcmenl and threatened that she will hle false case against the petitioner. ' - 1f:,": 1"*"r,y 5 As petitioner dcnied for settlement, she filed a false complaint against the petitloner

5. Learncd counsel lurther contendcd that the police r'r'ithout conclucLing preliminary inves[igation straight away registercd thc case implicating the petitioner as A'3 in the alleged offence' Petitioner is no \^,ay responsible for any forgery' The 2"d respondent has frled suit vide O.S.No'62 of 2025 on the file of Principal Scnior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District' for recovcry of possession in respect of the subject plot with all false ancl baselcss allegations and it is purely civil in nature As such, requested the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the oLher hand, learned counsel for 2ud respondent would submit that petitioner herein is the active participant in the atleged conspiracy between L.Veena and R Venkata Ramana ancl within one week, the whole transactions took place, that the case is at investigation stage, police will investigate into the same and hnd out whether the documents are genuine or not' As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition' ( & 6 n

7. Considering thc submissions made by the counsel and the material on record, the allegations against the petitioner is that he along with A. 1 and A.2 colluded with each other and created death certificate of the 2"d respondent and also lamily member certihcate of A. 1 . A. 1 sold propert5z to A.2 who in turn sold the property to petitioner herein,A.3. 8- The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant's document itself is sufrrcient to show that she is not Annapurna Srecram and that she is falsely claiming the properfy. when there are rivar contentions about the identity of 2,,d respondent, it has to be investigated by the investigating agency and it is not the stage to decide that the petitioner_A.3 is a bona hde purchaser. Therefore, at this stage, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, it any, shall st-and closed I j To,,I //TRUE COPYII SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ftt; SEC FFICER ]ii J'-:3:itional Metropolitan Magistrate, I\iledchal Matkajgiri Diskict, Uppar

2. The Station House Oificer,Uppal p.S., Rachakonda. 3. One CC to SRt. BALA MALLESH D Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana

5. One CC to SRI HARIPREETH RAO Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies MKN/gh / HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 : I I i I I I \ ORDER CRLP.No.3481 ot 2025 ,. r .4' i 1 1 sEP ',/025 -fs:,.,i- a //.i /' ,!?/ i // 4' CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED