The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Talangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Telangana 2. Smt Bantu Sunitha, Wo Bantu Nagesh, Age 48 Occ House R/o 3-9-62'l plot No.15, Road No. 2, Pragathi Nagar Colony Mansurabad 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 quash the proceedings Against accused in FlR.No.270l2025 For the Offence punishable under section U/s 108,318(4) 316 (3) 61(1) r/w 3(5) BNS pending on the file of Vll Additional Junior Judge-Cum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Hayatnagar. ...Complainants l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in of F.l.R No.27012025 of Vanasthalipur.am Rachakonda U/s U/s 108,318(4) 316 (3) 61(1) r/v 3(5) BNS pending on the fite of Vll Additional Junior Judge Cum Vll Additional Metropolitan [r,ilagistrate Cyberabad at Hayatnagar, Rangareddy, District pending disposal of the Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners in Both CRLps and the M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondenl No.1 and of Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondent No_2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER a THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3593 AND 3597 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since a common issue arises in these criminai petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.3593 ot 2025 and Crl.P.No.3597 of 2025 are filed by the petitioners-A.3 and A.2 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.270 of 2025 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 1O8 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS) and while remanding the accused Lhe other sections were added i.c.,318 (4),316 (3),61 (1) r/rv.3 (5) of BNS.

3. The facts of the case are that the de facto-complainant-2"d respondent lodged a report before police on 23.02.2025 alleging that her marriage was performed in the year 2OO2 with one Bantu Nagesh and they have two children and that her husband make a living running and took lease the SLMS Hospital in Nagole X Road, Sanghamitra Hospital in Chaitanyapuri and Sunrise Hospital in It 2 Bandlaguda. It is alleged that about one year ago, her husband had mortgaged Plot No.95 in Sy.Nos.454, 455, -+56, 457, 458 admeasuring l30O yards plot in Tharamathipet worth Rs.37,OO0/ per yard with Shekhar Loiam and obtained Rs.30 lakhs hand loan for his personal needs. Thereafter, he obtained another Rs.75 Lakhs by mortgaging plots bcaring No.433, 434. 435 and 436 of Pasumamula village with Shekhar Lolam. Hou,ever, Shekhar Lolam allegcdly colluded with G.lndrakaran Reddy, Sammr Reddy ar-rd Dr.Anoop Mehta to sell the plots at high price u,ithout reLurning the plots to )rer husband, leading to his mental zurd financial devastation. OrL 22.O2.2O25, when the complainant re turncd home she found her husband hanging to the ceiling fan in their bedroom and immediatr:ly he was taken to a nearby hospital, u,here he was declared dead. The 2"d respondent alleges that Shekhar Lolam and others caused her husband's death for selling hve plots to others and requested to take action against them. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.27O ol 2O25. During the course of investigation, it was obscrvcd that the deceased approached A. 1 for his personal needs lor which the deceased pleclged the original sale deed documents u,ith A. I through AGPA, rvhere A.1 cheated and registcred the sale deed in favour of A.3, that by pledging plot No.95 of Tharamathipet village the deceased took an amount of Rs.35 lakhs lrom A. I and ,a, I / o 3 thereafter, thc deceased handed over the remaining four docurncnts and obtained an arnount of Rs.80 Lakhs and without the knowledge of deceased with a malafide intention, all the plots were sold to A.2 to A.5 for huge amount. As such, the case was registered against the accuscd for the offences under Section 108, 318(4), 316(2), and 61(1) r/w 3(s) of BNS.

4. ., Heard Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the pctitioners, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2"d respondent in Crl.P.No.3593 of 2025, Sri T.Ba1a Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent in Cr1.P.No.3597 of 2025 ald Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1"t respondent-State.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitionerin Cr1.P.No.3593 of 2025 is that on 18.04.2024 the husband of 2"d respondent i.e., deceased executed a AGPA with possession and by virtue of the same, A. 1 registered sale deed in the year 2024 after receiving entire sale consideration amount from the wife of A.3 and registration was effected by A. 1 in favour of wife of A.3 and that after arrest of A.3 he obtained bail. There are no averments in the complaint to constitute any of the offences against A.3. trven A.3 is not the registered owner of the said plot, it was registered in the 4 .,.| name of his u.ife and none of the offences allegecl in the complaint are attracted

6. The further contention of learned counsel is that A.2 is a doctor by profession and he was picked up by the police from his hospital. There is no allegation against this petitioner except stating that petitioner-A.2 purchased three plots from A. 1 in the name of his father. He further contended that both the petitioners wcre implicated in this case only to extract monel, from them by hling false cases and got arrested the petitioners as thcy have not acccpted to compromise the matter whilc they were in custody. None of the alleged offences attracts to this petitioner. As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners A.3 and A.2 respectively.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2,,,1 rcspondcnt hled counter stating thal the husband of 2.d respondent u.as the owner of and possessor of Plot No.433 admeasuring 396 Sq yards in Sy.Nos.94 part and 95 part of Pasumamula Village, and that the husband, son and daughter of the 2"d respondent are the o\rners and possessors of Plot No.434, admeasuring 36O sq yards in Sy.Nos.94 pat-t and 95 part of Pasumamula Village, having purchased the same from M/s.Sri Renuka Homes F\,t. Ltd.. under o I I l l 5 registered documents. Originally M/s.Sri Renuka Homes converted the land into residential plots and executed a registered ()PA in favour of Smt G.Upendramani and subsequently, thc said GPA holder sold the plots in favour of husband of the 2"a respondent by executing a registered sale deeds in the year2O24. If is further stated that on 16.08.2O23 the deceased requested A. 1 for providing hand loan for business necessities. Accordir-rgly, A. 1 gave an amount of Rs.27 Lakhs with a condition to pay interest @ '24o/o p.a., and at that time A. 1 obtained a registered salc deed in respect of Plot No.95 admeasuring 3OO Sq yards towards sccurity and A. 1 assured to execute re-conveyance deed in favour of her husband and to that effect a Memorandum of Understanding was also entered into by the parties. Further, the deceased also raised loan from A. 1 on four occasions totaling to Rs. i,15,89,000/ and also executed registered AGPA in favour of A. 1 towards securi[r and A- 1 assured that he will re-convey the same by executing registered sale deed after rcceipt of loan amount, but the deceased failed to repay the amount. As such, there was a setllement between them before the elders, and as per the settlement, the deceased has to pay a total amount of Rs. 1,28,64,645 /- for which the cost of plot No.95 admeasuring 3O0 Sq yards was fixed as Rs. 1,11,00,0OO/- and that the deceased shall not clairn the said p1ot. Further, the deceased has to pay an amount of Rs. 17 Lakhs ) 6 and Rs.I 0 Lakhs totaling to Rs.27 Lakhs to A. 1 zrr-rd as per the advice of elders, A. 1 to re-convey Plot No.433, 434, 435 and 436 in Iavour of the rleceased. lt is further stated that the cieccased has pald Rs.27 lakhs to A.1 and as per understanding the deceased has cleared the entire loan amount but A,I did not re-convey the plots and on seeing the attitude of A. 1, the deceaseci verihed the Encumbrance certihcate, then he came to knorv that A. 1 in collusion with A.2 and A.3 created documents by executing the registered sak: deeds on 18.04.2024 in favour of petitioners in order to harass him. A. I conspired with A.2 to A.4 and b1, suppressing execution of alleged sale deeds, entered into settlement before the elders. As such, her husband committed suicide due to the said harassment. The allegations against the se petitioners are that they in collusion with A.1 have grabbed the property of her husband, which requires investigation. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this petition.

8. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, it is seen that case was registered against the accused basing on the suicide note of the deceased. In the suicide note the allegations are against A. 1 which v,,as written by the deceased himself requesting the authorities to take action against A. 1. Except mentioning the name of Anoop Mehta stating 7 that A.1 sold property to Anoop Mehta, there are no allegations against these petitioners to attract the offence under Section 108 of I]NS.

9. On going through the suicide note the allegations are mainly against A. 1 whereas, the 2"d respondent herein lodged report staLing that there is conspiracy between A. 1 to A.4 which rcsulted in commission of suicide by her husband and the record shou.s theLt A. 1 sold property to the wife of A.3 and father of A.2 bul not to the petitioners herein. The admitted facts are that the deceased executed registered AGPA in favour of A. 1 and basing on the said AGPA, he sold the property to the wife of A.3 and father of A.2. Whatever allegations are made in the complaint and in l.he suicide note are against A. 1 only and these petitioners are onlt. the purchasers of the said property. Therefore, it cannot be said that these peLiLiorlers are abettors for commission of suicide oi the deceased. Furlher the allegations against the petitioners arc that the1, 66.u1.4 the deceased. In support of her contention, the 2"d respondent contended that there is conspiracy between A. 1 to A.4 and in view of the said conspiracy only, all the accused cheated her husband, whereas there are registered documents in favour of A. 1 and also the admitted fact that A. 1 advanced loan to the husband of 2'd respondent and as a securit5r, he executed the documents I I 8 whereas, AGPA shows tl'rat he gave authorit5r to A.l 10 sell the property Thereforr:, the registered documcnt revcals that A.1 sold property basing on the AGPA- Whatevcr, allegations k-'vellecl in the complaint are only against A- 1, mcre purchasinll tlrt. propcrty by the subsequcnt purchascrs, it cannot be said as r:onspiracy and cheating donc by the petitioners herein. Therelorc, none o[ the sections alleged against the petitioners are .ltuzrctcd to the petitioners. As such, continuation of proceeclings :tgainst these pctitioners is noLhing bllt abuse o[ proccss of lau. I[ence, the proceedings rnitiated against the petitioners arc lialtlc lo be ql-rashed.

10. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions arc i-rlkru,ed and the proceedings against the petitioner-A.3 in Crl.P.No.3593 of 2025 and thc proceedings against thc pctitioncr-A.2 in Crl. P.No.3597 of 2025 in FIR No.270 of 2025 of V:rnasthalipuram Polic'r: SLation arre hereby quashe d. Miscellaneous pe titions, pendin g, it any, sh:rll sti,rnrl closed SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// oill OFFICER SECTI \ To,

1. The Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar. 2. The Station House Offiier, Vanast-halipuram Police station, Rachak-onda. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prdsecutor, Hilh Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar. Advocate IOPUCI Hyderabad [OUT] '*-=-....-*.*E.*Fau*-*tfftdl{w

5. One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL !/ 7r/l t / HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ir. (. ') OI AIJE zffi .. 1a ,t -aI , .t t(. ,. ;-2' .,, COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.3593 AND 3597 OF zOZs ALLOWING THE BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS / 4z- 4- /rfts