The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal peition, the High Corrt ,"V U" p.leased to stay all proceedings including of'the Vll Addl. JFCM at warangal distric{ in c.c.No. 944/2008 in crime No.92lr008 of p.s. Madikonda, warangal District on the fire of vI Addr. JFCM ar warangar District for the offenci Uls. 42O, 423, 465, 468, 447,506, 120(B) tpc. "ppurrrn." This Pet ti )n coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Mr:ntorandum of Grounds of crirni ral Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri V Raghunath' Advocate fc,r the )etitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behall of the Respondent No.1. The Court rnade the following: ORDER I i I t ! i i t I I i ! i i I I t I i i i I t I ! I I 7'- THE HONOURABLD SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIIIAL PETITION ilo.786 of 2OtS OR.DER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ,Cr.p.C.J to quash the proceedings against tJre petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.944 of 2008 on the file of the learned VII Additional Judicia,l Magistrate of First Class, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 465, 468, 447,506 and 120-8 of the Indian penal Code, 186O (for short IPCJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the case involves a plot of land, Survey No. 1296, situated at Madikonda village, Hanamkonda Mandal, which was declared as Ceiling Surplus land belonging to the Government. The [and, measuring Ac.3 1.39 guntas, was surrendered by its original owner, Pesaru Vishwambar Reddy, who received compensation of Rs.2,739 /-. Despite knowing the land's status, the petitioners executed a registered deed of agreement, selling 6 acres and 20 guntas of the land to accused No.4, Vanga 2 SNS,J Crl.P.No.786 rf 20l5 Venkatt:shtx'i LrIu. They allegedly colluded with others tc 15ab ttre Go Yernr rent land, committing criminal consplrac1" and through a fraudulent dee<l of cheating [h 3 Government transfer rvit.l L false statements of consideration'

3.t{earcSriV'Raghunath'learnedcounselappearr'ngon behalf o1- th e petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Me nLoon' learnerl Acl,litional Public Prosecutor appearing orr behrrlf of respor.dcnt No. 1 State and learned Government Plearl( r for reventte ap rearing on behalf of respondent No'2' Lea rl ti:c1 counsel for the petitroners submitted til{tt the 4. complainar rt s allegations of criminal trespass' cheatinp'' and conspiraci :rgainst the petitioners are entirely false' concccte,l. :rnd labncated to harass them and that thr: land belongs t( the (iovernment is based on assurrlptic ns and presLrrnptir[s, and it is for the complainant to s'trictly prove He further submitted that the peLitio::lt:rs are owners and possessors of the prope;-fr' and this ilsser ton the irbsolrte therelorr:.thcreisnoquestionoftrespassingorindrrll{ingin any :rzru,Jtrlent act and that there is no material on te:ord to suggest tlal the peti[ioners committed any criminal act' I I I I I i I I I I I 3 SI(sr' Crl.P.Io.766 of2Ol5 except for vague and unsubstantiated allegations. The de facto complainant, being a Tahsildar, has abused his position by launching a false criminal case without following due process and completing the enquiry, which amounts to misuse of public offrce for extraneous reasons. The alleged panchanama and report are biased and contrary to law, and invoking criminal law in this case amounts to harassing the petitioners. The complainalt has a remedy under civil law but has chosen not to pursue it, which itself shows malicious intention. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against tJle petitioners by allowing this criminal pe tition. 5- On the other hald, learned Government Pleader, for responden[ No.2 hled counter alfrdavit denying the averments made by Lhe learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners, knowingly sold subject Ceiling Surplus Land, Lo accused Nos.4 and 5 through registered deeds, despite being aware that the land belonged to the Government and that the petitioners colluded with each otJrer, hatched a plan, and executed the documents illegally, cheating the Government through false statements of consideration. 4 sKs,.J Crl.P.No.78(' of 2()15 Therefrlre,rheallegationslevelledagainstthepetitiont:rl;are seriou:;inrature,whichrequiretrialandprayedtlreC)llrtto dismiss lh e rriminal Petition' tn f.ight of the submissions made by both the lerrrned 6. counsel an 1 a perusal of the material available on recorrl' the contelltiorlofthelearnedcounselforthepetitioners;isth;rtthe petitic,ner:; are the absolute owners and possessors of the subje,;t pr )perty, and there is no question of respas'sing or engaging ir r fraudulent activities' The petitioners fu rtht:r argue that, apar t trom vague allegations' there are no s'cecific avernlents to substantiate the offences' Additionally' it is contended that the Tahsildar exceeded his -iurisdiction and failed to {c llon' the due process o[ [aw' I{crv ever, the panchanama' statement-s' zrnd vritness 7. testitnon ir s indicate that the land in questiorl has been declerrecl I ,urplus- As such, the petitioners cannot entel into a cont:acl 1o sell the subject property ln the pres':nt rlase' the defe.ctoclmplainantistheTahsildar,whoisnotl-heaggrieved part),. 'ft c person who entered into the agreement of sale has not flled an1' complaint. To attract an olfence unde| Section I l I 5 sxs,J Crl.P.Ifo.7t6 of 20ts ) i I i I l i 1l l I i I \ t 42O of the IpC, the accused must induce the person to act upon their inducement, and the aggrieved part5r must have suffered a loss as a result. There is no loss to the de facto complainant, and the accused never induced the de facto complainant, as per the averments in the charge sheet. The charge sheet shows that the petitioners, though not the owners of the property, entered into an agreement of sale with accused Nos_4 and S. proceedings against accused Nos.4 and 5 are quashed, stating that they are the victims in the hands of accused Nos.l to 3. 8 In the present case, though the charge sheet states that accused Nos_ 1 to 3 forged the document, the said document is in lavour ol accused Nos.4 and 5. There are no averments in the charge sheet to show who is in possession of the property or who trespassed onto the land. The investigation lacks this information. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of tJre process of law and the same is tiable to be quashed. 9 - Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.No.944 of 2o0g on 6 sKS'"' Crl-P.No.7a6 o i 2015 f.\ the h1<: ol - he learned VII Additional Judicial Magistra:e of First Ctass, Warangal District, are hereby quashed' lr{isce llaneous applications, if any pending' shall rrtand closed To, i I //TRUE COPY// Sd/- Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL OEPU ry REGISTRAR SEC:TION OFFICER \

1. The Vll A iditional JFCM at Warangal District L' i. it. 6trti,,n House officer, tr,tadikonda Police Stati6n, Werrangal District' 5. One CC t ) SRl. V RAGHUNATH, Advocate [OPUC] +. i*ii cc" to the pubtic prosecutor, State of Tetangana, High (.;ourt Buildings, s. iwo'CCs to GF for herenue, High Court for the State of telangana' [OUT] 6. Two CD ( )opies at Flyderabad (OUT) Nr : -. : l I ! 1 i i , I I I I I I i I' : ) j I ! i I ! t i I I i I i i I j t : HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/ 2025 I ORDER CRLP.No.78( ol 2015 -,::==:S \ n,:;ra,i 1 o r' ;, 1 ti ,il.l{ zll?i ( a L) CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. Otl.,,'i' "rr'\'x