The High Court · 2025

The State of .Telangana, through the Station House Officer,, p S. Konijerla, Khammam District, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Staie of Telangana, High Court Building, Hyderabad, Telangana. Giri Polisetty, S/o. _ srihari, qged 62 years, Occ: Managing Director of lndoQa.tar .Pro.iects Pvt. Ltd_, .offrce at Wyra Road, near Sakiht-paper Office, Konijerla village and mandal, Khammam District. R-2 impleaded as per court order dated 28.03.2025 vide t.A. No. 01 of 2025 made in Crl.P. No. 3902 of 2025. ... Res po n de nUCom p la ina nt 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 enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in the above-said crime vide cr.No.50 ot 2o2s, dt.2sto2t2o2s on the file of P SKonijerla, Khammam District. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3921 OF 2025 Between: Karnati Sharath, S/o Karnati Rama Mohan Rao, Age - 61 years, Occ - Business, E/o 29-28-82, Dasari Vaaristreet, Suryaraat pet, Viiayawada(Urban). Buckinghampet, Krishna District, Andhra prad-esh-5200b2. AND ...Petitioner/Accused No. 3 1 2 The State of Telangana, throqgh the Station House Officer,, p.S. Konijerla, Khammam District, rep by its Public prosecutor, Hiqh Court for the Stale of lelangana, High Court Building, Hyderabad, Telangaia. Giri Polisetty,. S/o. - srihari, a_ged 62 years, Occ: Managing Director of lndoQatar Projects.Pvt. Ltd., oftrce at Wyra Road, near Sak;hi"pape;-Offic;; Konijerla village and mandal, Khammam bistrict. R-2 impleaded as per court order dated 28.03.2025 vide t.A. No made in Crl.P. No. 3902 ot 2025. 01 of 2025 ... Res po n de nUCo m pla ina nt 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 enlarge the petitioner/ accused no. 3 on ball in the event of his arrest in the above said crime vide cr. No. 50 of 202s, dt zsto2l2o2s on the file of p.s. Konijerla, Khammam District. These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr- c. piatap Reddy senior counser representing Mr. V. Naveen Kumar v, Advocate for the Petitioner in all criminal petitions and the Mr. syed yasar Mamdon, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in all criminal petitions and of Mr' Tarun Ram Aitham, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in ar criminar petitions. The Court made the following: THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITI ON Nos.3902 3917 and 3921 of 2025 COMMON ORT) ER: Since these criminal petitions are arising our of Crime No.50 of 2025, these crirninal petitions are heard together ancr disposed of by this cornmon order 2 'l'hese criminar petitions are filed under Section 4g2 and 4g3 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ,BNS,S,) seeking a'ticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No. l in crr.p.No.39 17 or 2025, pctitioncr/accused No.2 in cr{.p.No.3902 of 2025 and petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.392l of 2025 in Crime No.50 of 2025 on the file of P S Konijerla, KJrammam District, registered for the oflbnces punishabre under Sections 3 l8(4), 322, 329(4),338 and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023 (for shorr ,BNS,).

3. l'he brief facts of the case are that on 25.02.2025 ar about 22:00 hours, the SFIO, p.S.Konijerla, received a written cornplaint about the incidents occurred in between 2g.12.2024 at 0g.00 pM to 29.12.2024 at 03.00 AM at Sub-Registrar Office, Wyra, reported on25.02.2025 at22.00 hrs by the respondent No.2, Managing Director of Indo_eatar pr.ojects / 2 '-\. ..- - .t \l Pvt. Ltd., Khammam, stating that accused Nos' I to 3, who are the Partners in Greenlands Developers, made a scam by transferring some immovableproperties,bycreating64falseandfakeregistrations'which are under the bank mortgage, and cheated the original land owners with the instigation of Sub-Registrar Office, Wyra' In the said registered documents, accused No.4 stood with the lonn 32-A on behalf of the beneficiaries of said 64 false and fake registrations and he transferred an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- from Greenlands developers bank account and accused Nos.5 and 6 signed as witnesses on all ol the 64 documents On 2g.l2.2o24atll.50AM,accusedNos.lto3trespassedintothe respondent No.2 office along with accused No 7 and 60 anti social elements and accused No.7 removed the hard disk' NVR' DVR of CC cameras and took them away, accused Nos'8 and 9' who are the employees of accused No'l, regularly coming to the respondent No'2 office since Ol.Ol.2O25 and threatened him with dire consequences by saying that they are acting as per the orders of potice' Thus' take action against the accused persons' Basing on the same' Crime No'50 of 2025 was registered. \ *;i r-

4. Heard Mr.C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.V.Naveen Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing lbr the respondent No. I State and Mr.Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for rcsponder-rt No.2.

5. Leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioners subrnitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in the above crime. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 25.02.2025 with false allegations to settle the civil disputes. He ftuther submitted that accused Nos. 1 to 3 are the partners of M/s Green Land Developers, Khammam and the same was registered under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the said pa(nership dealing with real estate and construction business. He lurther submitted that accused No. I to 3 are the owners of land to an extent of Ac.9l.l5t/o gts, out of the said extent they have given 39.29 gts. in Sy.Nos.3 l2 ol Konijerla revenue village, ln Sy.Nos 90/42, g}lDll, 90/A16, 90/Ct2, 90tct3, 92tBtA, 92tDt3, 92tE, 92/Dt2, 9vA, 92tDil, 92/8. 92/FlA.'92/8, 92/FlE of Lingagudem revenue vitlage and in Sy.Nos.94lAi 's5tA, 9stq, g6tAA, 97tA, g8tAA, 105/Ill1, gst]., g6tE, *- Eiti i1 4 .-Il\.--r 971A, g8l\ 9611^, 9llE, 96lL, loslE, 105/EE, 105/VU, 105/vul, lOslVlJZ,98/EE, 98fVU, 98/E of Ammapalem Revenue Village sittrated at Konijerla mandal, Khammam District, in favour of INDO QATAR PROJECTSPVTLTD.,repbyitsPromotorandManagirrgDirectorGiri Polisetty/respondent No.2 and entered into registered development agreement cum General Power of Attorney on 20'05'2015' lor construction of duplex villas. However, as per the said developrnent agreement, respondent No.2 has not made any construction of villas in respect ofshares allotted to the petitioners and accused Nos'l to 3 On the other hand, respondent No.2 has made construction of the villas in respect ofhisshareandalienatedthesametothethirdparties/purchasers.Atthat stage, Accused No. I to 3 alienated and executed registered sale deeds in favour of purchasers in respect of their shares which were allotted as per the develoPment agreement.

5. I . He further submitted that as per Clause 3 of above said development agreement, the petitioners are entitled to enter into the sale agreement with third parties for their respective allotment villas and to register the same in the concerned registered offices by taking sale considerationamountsattheirdiscretion.Thepetitionersexecutedthe 5 sale deeds in respect of their property which were alloned as per the said development agreement. The petitioners have not forged or fabricated the documents. Hence, the ingredients of Section 338 of BNS are not applicable to the lacts and circumstances ofthe.case.

5.2. He lurther submitted that the purchasers, rvho purchased the prope(y lrom the pctitioners, have not made any complaint against them and respondent No.2 is not entitled lodge complaint against them. As soon as petitioncrs came to know about the error which was committed by them while executing sale deeds in favour of purchasers, .they have addressed letters ro Sub-Registrar Officer, Wyra, for rectification of documents. when the Sub-Registrar failed to rectify the same, petitioners have approached the competent Civil Court and llled suits in o.S.Nos. 1 58, I 59 and 160 of 2025, for execution of rectifi cation deeds by deleting the scheduled property in the registered sale deeds and the said suits are pending and the det'endants therein also have not lodged any complaint against petitioners. He further submitted that respondent No.2 himself approached this courr and filed w.p.No.37070 ot. 2024, seeking to declare the action of official respondents in interfering with the civil disputes and arbitration proceedings as illegal. ./ ,/ '--/ , ,i -r*r,1, '., .1i.. 6 \ .ry _\r. .-- \| I

5.3. Even according to the allegations made by the respondent No'2 in - the complaint, the nature of disputes is civil in nature between petitioners andrespondentNo.2.Hefurthersubmittedthatthepetitionersareready and witling to cooperate with the investigation and also the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court' Hence' the petitioners prayed lor grant of Anticipatory bail'

5.4. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgrnents ol the Hon'ble Apex Courl and high Court of Kerala' which are as under: l. Mohammed Ibrahim and others v' Stste of Biltar and anotherl

2. Jit Vinayak Arolkar v' State of Goa and others7 and 3. Premchand R.Nair and others v' Inlegraletl Housing Developers Limited, Rep' by its Former Regionil Manager and Authorised Represenlalive' Mi.Mahesh ani anolher) ' Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that

6. respondent No.2 is the partner of IWs Greenland Developers' Khamtnam' and he is hotding the share of 40%o in the said company' He further submitted that the petitioners along with other accused committed grave I (2009) I SCC 7sl 'z 2024 SCC Onlrne Ker 861 I Crrmina)rApPeal No.393 of 2024 ';Fl"', , :,.,,.-'r . ,. ri"-.- 1 7 offence and executed f'ake registrations and fabricated the documents worth of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. He further submitted that the petitioners have committed the offence on 28.12.2024 and they trespassed into the office of respondent No.2 on 29.12.2024 along with'60 anti social elements and removed the hard disk, NVE, DVR of CC cameras and took them away and also wamed the rcspondent No.2 with dire consequences. The investigation is under progress and at this stage, il' the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every chance to interfere with the investigation and also influence the rvitnesses. tlence, prayed to dismiss the criminal petltlons

7. Leamed counsel lor the respondent No.2 submitted that as per the development agreement dated 23.03.202r, respondenl No.2 has to deliver the possession of independcnt villas to the M/s Greenland Developers within a period ol'24 months with 6 months gross period lrom the date of obtaining permission for the first viila of the B scheduled property, failing which respondenr No.2 has to pay rent @ Rs.5,000/_ per month per villa until completion of land lords allotted villas. FIe fi-rrther submitted that as per Clause l0 of the said development agreement, the first party namely M/s.Greenland Developers, petitioners, who are the partners of -// 8 \=r'l the said Firm, agrecs and undeftakes not to sell, dispossess or alienate or enter into the agreement in respect ol the allotted shares/plots of the developer belonging to the respondent No.2 with the third parties. He further submitted that petitioners and other acgused, contrary to the terms and agreements ol development agreement alienated the property and executed fabricated documents to third parties behind his back. He further submitted that subsequent to lodging of present complaint, petitioners filed civil suits for rectification of the registered sale deeds. He further submitted that petitioners have also committed the offence and they forcibty cntered into o lfice of respondent No.2 along with other accused and 60 anti social elements and damaged the fumiture of the office and also removed the hard disk, NVR, DVR of CC cameras and took thern away and warned respondent No.2 with dire consequences I .l . He lurlher submitted that even according to the averments made by the petitioners, if respondent No.2 has not constructed villas in the property which were atlotted in favour of petitioners as per the terms and conditions of development agreement, petitioners ought to have initiated the proceedings under Clause 7, seeking to dissolve the dispute by way of arbitration and petitioners without initiating any proceedings, created \ \ ,r,{ .:!:t! .:,Y h,#$i3-'-, L / -r 9 forged and fabricated documents and alienated the property, especially the property which was allotted in favour of respondent No.2. He also submitted that petitioners alienated the 'c' scheduled property which was allotted to the share of respondent No.2 arid the investigation is under progress. There are specific allegations against the petitioners, and they are not entitled fbr grant ol anticipatory bail. If the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail they wiil interfere with the investigation and also influence the witnesses. 8' Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner/accused No.l narnely Makkena Rarnu and ponnam Venkateswarlu have entered into Development Agreement_cum_ Irrevocable General power of Attomey with respondent No.2, who is Promoter and Managing Director ol INDO eATAR PROJECTS pVT LTD., vide Regisrered Document bearing No. 1106 of 2021, dated. 23 .03.2021 . Pursuant to the above said Development Agreement, the petitioners have given an extent of Ac.39.29 gts. of land in favour of respondent No.2 for deveropment and construction of villas. In the said agreement, the entire property lbr developntent was shown as ;i"l 10 A-Schedute property, Land owners' property was shown as B-Schedule property and Developer's property was shown as C-Schedule property' It is also relevant to extract the Clause I to 3 and 10 of Terms and Conditions olDeveloprnent Agreement' which.reads as follows: I t, tho )nd nrt.^. htl\ t(t L\tmplcle und handover/daliver possassion of ,n" iu,l"ri*lrri i,iL, ol 't* I'" parry allormcnt share' within 24. monrhs 'ii,i,i,iii,i"u )i,i,,i,'o'1,,',, p"'i'a 1*i the date of otuainins permission for First villa of the l]-Schedule of Property 2) Faiting thut, the 2"d party has rc pay renr Jor the said, Villas ur the ,o,"71 ar'i tl6o p'tr nrttttit p"i vitln intil co''pletion of the land lords allotted villas. 31 The frst Parlv is (tt liber+' lo enler inlo sal.e agreemcnls tt'ilh the third Dttlies li'r t'hct respcctive allotmLnl villos and to regislcr lhP sam( tn ',;;;ri;;":;,,;; ,rri,,r,i u1.1i'0.s bv tukittg sale consideration omounts at lheir discretion. l0) Thc F ir'st Panv* hereby agrees and undertakes not lo sell de al ...,,,';:,,:,'::: )i ),',,,1,i,,i1 i ,i,i,'erwise enter into asreement' m respecr of. :;;:,I';':;,;;;;i,','',11,n' a"'"iup"' (i'"' thn secoid partvl with the third parlics. g. According to the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that respondcnt No'2 has not complied with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and he has not made any construction of the Vittas in B-Schedule property' which were allotted to the petitioners. At that stage only' the petitioners have executed sale deeds infavourofpurchasersandtheyhavenotsoldthepropertybelongingto respondent No'2 i'e', C-Schedule property' whereas' learned counsel for (r -- - a. (. 11 respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the petitioners executed sale deeds in respect of property allotted to respondent No 2 and they have executed 64 registered documents in a shgle day ie on 28'12'2024' including C-schedule property' The complaint discloses that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners' According to the counter filed by Sub-Inspector of Police' Konijerta P'S'' they only recorded the statement of LW'l under Section 161 ol Cr'P'C' and the investigation is under Progress'

10. It is not in dispute that as per the Development Agreement' in the event respondent No.2 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the petitioners are entitled to initiate proceedings exercising Clause 7 of Development Agreemellt' which reads as follows: "referued " ln case of any disputes arising berween the parlies hcret.o touching these to lhe arbitrutor': ont chosen by nr"rrnrr.'lhe'metler shall bc ";;;;';;,;- ;;;-'in ,'or" o.f anv dilferen''c oJ' opinion herwecn such orii,**u they shalt nominati on both lhe parlies and rhe relevanl provisions of rhe arbitrations acl shall apply' ' The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgments in Mohd' Ibrahim (supra), Premchand R' Nair (supra)' and JIT Vinay Arolka (supra), all of which held that criminal proceedings should not be misused

11. ./ t2 for resolving civil disputes, as criminal provisions typically do not apply to civil matters. However, this principle does not applicable to the present . case, where specific criminal allegations have been made against Al to A.3 for cheating and the fabrication of documents, including the execution of 64 false registrations in favor of purchasers. While it is acknowledged that there exists a civil dispute, the case also involves serious issues of breach of trust, forgery and violations of the conditions mentioned in the development agreement on 23.03.2021 .

12. It appears from the record that the petitioners have not initiated any such proceedings. According to respondent No.2, the petitioners alienated and executed fabricated documents contrary to the Development Agreement including C-schedule property. According to the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have alienated only B-schedule property, which was allotted to them. Whether, the petitione5s/accused Nos. t to 3 alienated their property or alienated the property of respondent No.2 and whether the petitioners have executed fabricated documents in favour of third parties, the same have to be discovered during the course of investigation. However, the investigation is under progress. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances \-- -7 13 ofthecaseaswellasthegravityoftheoffence,thisCourtisnotincl.ined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners

13. Accordingty, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shatl stand closed' //TRUE COPYII SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR AuY;";";;;- U To, 1 2 J, 4.

5. 6. The lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, Hrgh Cou rt .Build ings, at Hyderabad (OUT) Station House Officer, P.S Konijerla, Khammam District. One CC to Sri. Naveen Kumar V, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to [Vlr. Tarun Ram Aitham, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies DL/gh +y HIGH COURT DATED:01104t2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.3902,391Z and 3921 OF 2O2S 1HE ST4 14: (<o ,( ) t 0 2 ilAY 2025 a ,<\ I oE.sD.rTCHgO t DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS q ?K