1. Mohammed QutubuddinKhan Soofi v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 quash the proceedings in C.C.No.16212025 on the file of XVll Addl.Chief Me,tropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleged offences under Section- 406,420,424 r/w 120(b), 34 of lPC. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lUlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the proceedings in C.C.No.161>-12025 on the file of XVll Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad all,eged offences under section-406,42o, 424, rlw 120(b), 34 of lpc including the arppearance of the petitioners pending disposal of the above Crl.P., l.A. NO: 3 OF :2025 Between

1. Begum l3adarRahman,, wo late Mohammed Abdul Rahman Khan soofi, 4g".0. about 71. years, Occ. Housewife, R/o 42-908/1, bagh-e-Hydari, Moula Ali, Hydr:rabad.

2. Qamar flahamanShabana, D/o late Mohammed Abdul Rahman Khan Soofi, AgeO about S2.years, Occ. Housewife, Rlo 12-1-834, North Lalaguda, Secundbrabad.

3. MeherR;ahmanFaimeena, D/o late Mohammed Abdul Rahman Khan soofi, Agqd about 50 years, occ. Housewife, R/o g-8-285, Bada Bazar, Gotkonda, Hyderabad.

4. GhazalaRahmanShahaba, D/o late Mohammed Abdul Rahman Khan Soofi, Aged about45years, Occ. Housewife,Rlo2TlA, Plot Noo.10, Road No.2, Govt.BoysHoostel, Kohinoor Enclave, Golkonda, Hyderabad.

5. Mohamrned Abdul Latheef Khan soofi, s/o late Mohammed AMul Rahman ![hqn pggfi.lg-eg ?po.ut 4?years, Occ. Business, R/o 42-90811, bagh-e- Hydari, luloula Ali, Hyderabad.

6. Mohamrned Abdul NizamRahman Khan Soofi,, s/o late Mohammed Abdul Rahman Khan Qgofi, Aged about 47 lears, Occ. Employee, R/o 42-g08/1, Bagh-e-l{ydari, Moula Ali, Hyderabad AND ... Petitioners/Respondents/Com p Ia ina nts I

1. Mohammed QutubuddinKhan Soofi @ Akram, S/o late Mohd.Fasiuddin Khan, aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1-4-910, Flat No.502, sth Floor, A-Block, Vajra Residency, Bakaram,Hyderabad.

2. Samreen Soofi, D/o Mohammed QutubuddinKhan Soofi, aged about 30 years, Occ. House wife, R/o H.No.1-4-910, Flat No.502, sth Fl-oor, A-Block,-Vajra Residency Apartments, Bholakpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad -5000ti0, Telangana ..Respondents/Petitioners/Accused No. I & 2

3. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespohdenUComplainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 09l}4l2025passed in l.A.No.2 ot 2025 in Crlp 4854 of 2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Galaiah Velugu, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. Syed Tousif Basha, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and Smt. S. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER --.-l THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4854 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.162 of 2025 on the tile of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderab;ad, for the'offences under Sections 406, 42O and 424 read with 1201'b) read with 34 of lPC.

2. Heard Mr.Galaiah Velugu, learned. counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Tousif Basha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7 and Smt. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that that then= are family disputes pending between the petitioners and the de facto complainant and that the petitioners are claiming the property through HIBA. He further submitted that there is a partition suit pencling before the civil court wherein the de facto'complainant has pray,ed for partition, which shows that he is not the owner of the property and hence, he cannot claim rents without any title. He further srbmitted that there was only a family arangement between 2 Crt.P. No.1851 of the members and under it, he cannot claim rents and use it for himself. He further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners involving criminal breach of trust, would not get attracted unless the de facto complainant proved to be the owner and that his property has been appropriated by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that there is no truth in the allegations leveled against the petitioners and just to settle the scores in the partition suit, the present petition is filed and the continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of law and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7 has submitted that the petitioners herein have filed O.S No.619 of 2000 saying that they are the only legal heirs of Fasiuddin Khan, which is utterly false and that the petitioners are children of the second wife of Faisuddin Khan Soofi while the de facto complainant and others as shown in the petition are the children of the first wife of Fasiuddin Khan Soofr- Thus, the problem has started just because of the suit filed by the petitioners herein. He further submitted'that both the branches have enjoyed the rents of 7 mulgies till 2020. He further argued that a notice was issued on 29.09.2021 by the de facto complainant against the tenant and the joint owner i.e. petitioner 3 ETD,J Crl.P. No./.851 of 2025 No.1, occupying one of the mulgies, enhancing the rents and has demanded the tenant to pay the said enhancement direcfly to the de facto c'omplainant, otherwise he would initiate appropriate legal action. To the said notice, a reply notice was issued by the petitioner No.1 stating that he is not the owner of th'e suit schedule property and that it is only a moral obtigation being the step brother,s son. ln the leas;e deed, he was described as landlord except that he has no claim in the suit schedute property. He further submitted that there are disprutes with regard to collection of rents over the property, but, however, there was criminar breach of trust as the petitioners herein were collecting rents on their own from the tenants and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record , \

6. lt is borne out by record that there are property disputes among the famity members i.e. between two branches of late Fasiuddin Khan soofi, one branch belonging to the first wife and the other belonging to the second wife of late Safiuddin Khan Soofi. The allegations out that the petitioners cotlected rents. Since the property is not yet partitioned among all the family members, it is alleged tlrat they cannot coilect the entire rents and put it to their own use ignoring the other children, who also are entitted to a .point \ ( 4 CnLP. No.185l. portion of rents. The statements of witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial and the truth in the allegations has to be elicited. Hence, it is not fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. However, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the presence of the petitioners before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner No 1 before the trial court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD'. N. SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR Note: This Order is amended vide Court Order dt:3011012025 in Crl.P.No.4854 of 2025 substituting the word "Petitionens" with " Petitioner No.1". This Order substitutes the earlier Order dispatched on 15/1012025. I SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The XVll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri Galaiah Velugu, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to Mr. Syed Tousif Basha, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies DLiPSL 'V- '. \: 1, HIGH COURT DATED: 1 25 30t10t2025 AMEMDE:D ORDER CRLP.No.48S4 of 2025 t) \ * 1?-1E D 0 I APR 202fi .f* CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF kP t..