The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the llemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C. No.1 384 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Xl tvletropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the offences 42O, 423, 467, 468, 471, sOG r/w 34 against the petitioner in the interest of justice- l.A. NO: 2OF 2O2s 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 stay all the further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in C.C. No.1384 ot 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Xl Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the offences 42O, 423, 467, 468,471,506 r/w 34 in the interest of justice- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Re::pondent No.1 and of Sri N. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1l. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3964 OF 2o25 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No- 1384 of 2024 on the file of Xl-Metropolitan Magistratc, Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 42O, 423, 467, 468, 471 and 506 r/w-Section 34 o[ Indian Per-ral Code.

2. The facts of the casc are that the complainant lodged a report before police stating that he was introduced to one Y.Shanmuka Prasad by Vaka Srinivas Reddy, a buildcr, who stated that Y. Shanmuka Prasad owned 1936 square 1'ards of land in Survey No. 1O7 in Bachupally which he purchased from MG. Varma on 16.07.2021. Shanmuka Prasad expressed his intention to sell 50O square yards and develop the remaining 1436 square yards. The complainant, along with Snnivas Reddy, r,isitcd Prasad's office at Bharyanagar and was shown the land near Hill County back gate. Trusting Y. Shanmuka Prasad, the complainant agreed to purchase 5O0 square yards of land for Rs.2.5 crores @r Rs.5O,OOO/- 2 pcr yard. The complainant paid Rs.5O lakhs in cash. Rs.50 lakl_rs through chcque, and additional cheques of Rs.50 lal:LLs ancl Rs. l3 lakhs. Further pityments included Rs.4.6 lakhs thror,rgh cheque in Lhc name of M. Ravi Kumar, Rs.5O lakhs in cash and Rs.32.4 laktrs in cash tc. Vaka Srinivas Reddy. On IL.O4.)A22, the SUO squzrrc vards u,cre registered in the name of S.ri Chaitanva IlLrrlclcr-s, t'cpi,rsenr-ed b1, y.S.V.L.N Swamy, at SRC (2riihiibuiaiprir vicic rirrr:rrmcnr No.11 1SO/2022. On the same day, a [)evelopmcnt Agrecmeltt c:um (ieneral power of Attorney for the re:naining 1436 squarc v:rrds u'as executed vide document No. 1ll6Lr/2O22, ktr u,:hir:l'r Y. Shanmuka prasad received Rs.50 lakhs ,rtrd issucd a rcccipt. I-atcr. ir hen the complainant applied fcr t:onstruction pcrrnrssion. hc discovered that the land had been registerecl undcr drrplicerte n:lntes. Upon confrontation, V. Shanntrrka prasad admitted t he nristake and promised to return the rnrtncY u.,ithrn lour rnonrhs Dul failed to do so. Subsequentll.. y.Shi:nmuka Prtrszrrl proviclc,l documents pertaining to Ac.0.36 gun ia.s of land in Shankarpalli :rnd Ac. 1.00 in Nandigama, Krishna Disirict. rvl.rich ncre also founcl to be fake. He later offered two triple_iredroom flats in Sardar Patel N:rgar, Kukatpally, but did not fulfill his promise. 3 Thereafter, when the complainant questioned y.Shanmuka prasad demanding repayment, he threatened him that he had gun and he kili him. The complainant alieged that Y. Shanmuka Prasad and M.G. Varma created fake documents and deceived him into paying Rs.3 crores. As such, he requested the police to take nccessarl/ action against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri N. Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1"t respondent and Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent_

1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is no way connected with the said allegations. No suit is filed against him. Suit is filed against A. I only and even according to the complainant, A. 1 sold land to him by demolishing the semi furnished house and he converted the said land into non- agriculture land by obtaining permission. The petitioner herein has no personal or business acquaintance r.l,ith the complainan t and there is no basis for the allegations made by him. 4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rcl,.ed or.L thc judgments in Correspondence, FIBANMS Education l Institution V B.Gunashekar and anothert, Rikhab Birani an.d another V State of Uttar pradesh and another2, Slyeth Limited and others V State of Bihar and arrothers, Mala Choudhary and another V State of Telangana and anothera and prayed this Cturt to quash the proi:eeditrgs agairrst the petitioner.

6. (.rn the otl-rtr hand, the defacto complainalt-2,,d respondent filccl counter Ccnvinq the averments made by the or.tjtioner. His ftrst cont(jntion is that A.2 sold property to A. 1 krrou.ingly that thcre is no Ac,0.16 guntas of land available. The letitioner A 2 along uith oihers haci aiready tralsferred Ac.13.45 g:lrtas of lancl in S;;.lJc. LO7 i;-r f:rvour of M/s.Gomathi Agro Farms ['vt. Ltd., long befbre he purpcrtr:d Ic scll lhe entire 1936 Sq yards admeasuring Ac.O.16 gunras to A.I tn 2O2I. This prior registererl transaction effr:cLivcly extinguisirc,l iinv right, title or interest of he pcLir-ioner has ovcr thc nt:rjoritv of the lald. The petitioner hzLd committed forger-v for thc purpose o[ cheating knolging fully u.el r_hat he had ' 2O25 SCC Onlinc S(l 793 I 2025 SCC Onlirre SO 823 :r 2022 SCC Onlinr: S(l 2038 'r 2O25 SCC Onlirl.r SC 1474 5 already divested himself of the title to the majority of the property in 2OO4, he dishonestly created sale deed No.79627 of 2O2L in favour of A. 1 which itself is sufhcient to prove the dishonest intention of the petitioner herein.

7. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the 2"d respondent relied on the judgments in Ram Narayan popli V Central Bureau of Investigation s , State through Deputy Superintendent of Police V Dharmalingam Ambalam and others6, wherein the relevant paras reads as under - 19- To say the least, the Courts below have failed to understand thc definition of 'forgery'and tnaking a false document'. The offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 of I-P.C. is ven wide. The document if executed dishones(ly or fraudulently urrh;n inlention of causing it to be believed that the said document rvas macle. executed or transmitted by or by the authority of a person bv [.hom or bt whose authority, he knows that it was not made, rvill fall rvithin the terms of 'making false document,. 2O. Here, it is a case where the Managers of the Vi[age propert] $ith an intention of causing it to be believed that the sale deed dated 12 12.2006 made by the person authorized to sell, had fraudulentl_v, dishonestly without any law{ul auttrori!2, had transferred the Property in favour of the 96 respondent. For the said itlegal act, the parties have rnet and conspired. The statements of rhe u itnesses pnma _7fizcie disclosed necessa4/ ingredrents to frame chargcs against all the accused persons. While so, the Courts below hacl considered the facts on a wrong premise that it is civil 1n nature and no criminal offence committed, in spite of the fact that the Vtllage property has been sold to the 9e respondent dishonestly b,r, persons, rvho r,vere only t}le Managers of the property and not the ou'ners of the property. There is no material ptaced by the accused , (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 641 . 2022 SCC Online Mad 429 6 persons that they bone fdety believed that they have arrthority to sell the propert]. and as a bona fide purchaser, 9t respondent purchased the Village common property through its Mitnagers or Trustees.

23. The Court .annot be a mute spectator when the publ c property is converte(l into private property by creating false document of title and usurped bI individuals. If any cognizable oflence brotrght to the light of the Police. it is rheir responsibililv and duty to investigate and file final rcport. At times, the Villagers may be intinidated or threatened bY pcrvcrful persons and or for aly other reasons, they mav r.rot set the lau into motion. [n such circumstances, Oourt sha,ll not find fault rvith the [-anv Enforcing Agencv, which has taken up the investigatiorl of a r:ognizable offence. More particularl], \vhen the public prop.^rt! b,r falsc document is converted intq privale properu* to expioit the natural resources. the Courts cannot turn a nelson eye and sit on h_\per technrcalities gil,e seal of approval and allo..r. illegalitv to colr irrlue- -

8. In Jasdeep Singh Alias Jassu V State ol Punjab 7, Kathyayini V Sidharth P.S.Reddy and otherss, wherein in para 23 the Honble Sr,pre ine Coui:t observed as under- : '23.'l'he abor,e precedents set b-!' this Court make it cri.stal clear that pendeici of cir.il proceedings on the same subjclt matter, involvrng thc s;rme parties is no justihcation to quash the criminal prcceedirrgs ii:r prirra facie case exists against the accusel persons, In present casr: certainlv such prima facie case exists against the respondents Considenng the long chain of events from r:rr:ation of famih' tree excl,rding the daughters of K-G. Yellappa Redd1, partition deed araong oiili the sons and gran<lsons of K.G. Yellapp:r Reddy, distribution ol compensation ar.vard among the respcnifents is sufhcient to co;rcluclc that there ivas active effort by respondents to reap o[[ the l)enefits lrom thc land in qucstion. Further, the alleged threat to .rppcllant and her sisters on revelation of ttre abo.'e chain of events iurti-rer aifirms the motive of respondents. All tl.e above ttrat a crimiual trial is necessar]a to ensurc justice to [actors sug€iest the appellarrt. 7 (20221 2 Supreme Court Cases 545 5 2uzc 5( ( (rnilt)P S, i iZJ 7

9. In Saraswatibai Vs Lalitabai and otherse in para 6 it was held as under : '6. It is required to be noted that, as such, after the conclusion of investigation, the investigating offrcer submitted the final report under Section 173 CrPC, concluding that the accused have colluded and committed offences under Sections 42O,464, 465,467,46a,4Zl read \,\,.ith Section 34 [PC. Once the hnal report was submitted under Section 173 CrPC, normally the accused, if aggrieved by the final report shall be relegated to approach the Magistrate for discharge. Even the High Court in the impugned order has also observed so- Despite the above, the High Court has u'rthout further discussing anj,thing on merits of the hnal report has quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the hnal report. On reacliltg o[ the impugned order and judgment passed by the High Court. it appcars that the High Court has not even observed anything on ments ol the final report and solely relying upon t}te statement of the counsel lor the accused as recorded in para 4, has believed the same and has quashed the crrminal proceedings and the hnal report. Therefore, on merits also. lhe impugned Judgment and orders passed by the High Court desewe to i)e quashed and set aside. At this stage, it is required to be noted that titere rvas no explanation as to why the original landowner-Accused 1 sold one plot to her husband (A-2) hrst and the sarne plot lvas sold to A 3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, once the investrgating olficer submitted the final report on conclusion of the investigation, the High Court rl'as not justified in interfering with the criminal proceedrngs in exercise of poq.er under Section 482 CrpC a:rd particularly v,,hen in the flnal report it s'as specifically conctuded on the basis of the material on record thar a prima facie case is made out for the offences alleged against ttre accused persons. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court tras clearly erred in exercise of porvers under Section 482 CrPC arrd in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings including the hnal report., I O. By relying on the above judgments, the learned counsel lor [hc 2"(r respondent submitted that there is prima facie case, ample evidence against this petitioner and, there are specifrc allegations, ') (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 272 8 direct and grave allegations against this petitioner nr:cessitating a full trial. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this pe r.ition. 1 1. Considering the submissions made by both the r:ounsel and the material piaced on record, the petitioner herein is arrayed as A.2. The contention of petilioner is that he is no vga.,, connected with the allegat;ons. Whatever transactions took frl"." i" lr-, betrveen A. 1 and dcfacto complainant, A. 1 executcd s;ale deed in fnynrrr .rf A-f^, t ^ . . , . - ^ l ^ : - , , - i ^^.1 ,l ^ -tt-^^ri^^- LilrBqiiirirr ^--. i!.-, ,l---- :iici.:i ;- uo ianrf availablr: airai douirie r'egislratiorrs are irr.tie as suclt criminal acti.on has to be taken against A. 1, ryhgpqnr, 1l-ta contention of 2"d respondent is thaL A. I purchased r.he [and from A.2 and A.2 sold rhe said propertv kno',r,inglv that the rc is no such Ac.O.16 guntas a'raiiable to sell Lhe same to A- 1- ..iorng through the said contention the main allegation against this lretitioner is that the land is orvned by the oetitioncr herein along rvith other co- owners, nho had already translerred Ac. 13.45 guntas in Sy.No. 1O7 ',\.'as srlld in favour of M/s.Gomathi Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd-, and knowingly, he cxecuted a regislercd sale der,d for Ac.0.16 guntas in favour of A- 1 on 16.O7.2021 and as on the <ia.te of selling the property he is not holdine Ac.O. 1.6 guntas of lar-r<l which itself { 9 shows that petitioner herein is the owner and without having titie, sotd the property which is not available on the said date. In the suit filed by A. 1, the trial Court granted injunction order, aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein hled C.M.A.No. 13 of 2O23 wherein it was observed that when the vendor of petitioners MG.Verma was not having any property after execution of [he exchange cleed except Ac.0.2.5 guntas, executing the documenl in respect oi Ac.O. l6 guntas clearly shorrgs that without any manner of right he has executed the document. However, there are disputcd facts n,hich have to be adjudicated by the trial Court during the course of trial. As such, there are no merits in rhis criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/-AVSPRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER ,,TRUE COPYI' to'',. -n" Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' "'o"t'oif,""'. Bachupally Police Station' cyberabad 3 Il,"" B3lT E",ff,X !;;;;;'nllr' 6o"t r"' th;'5i;; Li i"t"ns"n''t Kukatpally' Hvderabad [OUTI o'i#;;s,i r'ruir" Mukunda Reddv' Advocate [oPUC] ^ 5 o;; CC to sri N' Naveen Kumar' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies \q- ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 16tO912025 I ORDER CRLP.No.3964 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION :\ ( o '15 tlnu 2q5 '.)) ,)CsFATCTI r-!a * q -epA coY', .- &-o.