The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana' "seiirce,' years, occ prirate i.tew Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State "'RE'P.NDENTs/.oMPLAINANT Petitionundersection52SofBNSSpralngthatinthecrrcumstlrlces of Criminal Peiition' the High Court may be stated in the Memorand,;';i i;';t oleased to euash tfre crimiriat ."i" in r r.n.f.r o3 ol 2025 P.S. Malakpet pending on il" vir'niiitionai cnrer Judiciat Magistrate. Hyderabad against these il:"*f. "i petitioners Accused No.1 and 2 t.A. NO : 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr.ii Cr*nJr of Criminai P&ition,the High Court may..be oleased to stay ail turtn"r prlceeJings in r.r.R.l.lo .3 of 2025 P.S. Malakpet pending liiiri.iiirl, Ji'i" vri noaiiiJnul chiefJudicial Magistrate' Hvderabad ' This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum, of Grounds of Criminal petitjori"an-J rpon frearlng the arguments of Sri MSHD MUJAHID QURESHI ,nOvocate for the Petitioneiand Mr M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Publice ProseJ"i- ttl" Public Prosecu-tor (TG) on behalf of the fi"tp""Ol"t f.i".1 and Sri tr/lohad Asif Amjad' for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER 7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMI NAL PETITION No .5048 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitroners _ accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the FIR No.3 of ZO25 onthe file of P.S.Malakpet, Hyderabad, reg,ister:ed for the offences under Sections 420.468, 421 506 and 427 of the lndian pe,nal Code

2. Heard the submissions of l\4ohd.t\r,lujahid counsel for the petitioner, Sri lVl.Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 _ Slate and lVohd.Asif Amjad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Qureshi, learned

3. The learned petitioners counsel submits that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and that there is a partition suit pending among the family members vide O.S.No.257 of 2024 and that the said suit was filed in the month of July, 2024 and that after six months, the de faclo complainant has lodged the FIR as an afterthought, just to harass the petitioners and that even if they are aggrieved by the said documents, which they are disputing they can as we' agitate their case before the civir court during the triar of the said suit but with an ulterior motive, the piesent complaint is filed by ]' ..; ) |hedefactocomplainant.Hefurtherarguedthatthereisnoiotaof truth in the allegations leveled against them by the de facto complainant and he therefore, prayed to quash the FIR'

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No'2lde facto complainant has submitted that the matter is still under investigation andthattheactofthepetitionersiscriminalinnatureastheyhave createdashamdocument,whichhastobeaddressedinacriminal proceeding and that lhe de facto complainant was put to great loss due to the said document, which is fraudulently brought into existence by forgery and hence, he prayed not to quash the .proceedings. ;

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor' on the other hand' has submitted that the investigation is in progress and that the police cancollectevidenceduringthecourseofinvestigationtobringout the truth.

6. Perused the record

7. : The de facfo complaina.nt'has ffleil a complalnt on 02 01'2025 alleging that a house bearing No.16-1 1-51913 at Saleem Nagar, Malakpet was given under oral Hiba by their mother after the expiry .r--, .]'].+, 4 :-1 . , ./ 3 of their father, equally to himself and his brother i.e. l52Sq.yards each and that in 19g.1 he went to Saudi Arabia for pursuing his career and he has been frequently visiting lndia. However, when he came down on 10.01 .2024 to the above said address at Saleem Nagar, he found that his door was broken and that the accused have trespassed into his house and built a wall. When he enquired with his elder brother, they have shown him a fabricated document with a forged signature of their late mother showing that the whole property admeasuring 304 Sq.yards belongs to his elder brother and that his valuables inside the house are also missing. Thus, when he approached them, they abused him and pushed him away, thus, he lodged the present complaint.

8. ln Kunti and another y- Stafe of lJttar pradesh and anotherl , it was observed that it is the duty and obligation of the Court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process., particularry when the matter is essentiary of civir nature. It has arso referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. Stafe of punjaband anothef. *i;t" making this observation. ' 1:oz:y 6 scc tos 'i202.;1; scct joo 4 j -:'- a ln Deepak Gaba and others v' State of Uttar Pradesh and 9 anothef , the Apex Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints' camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. lt was further held that such attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold

10. ln Thermax Limited and otnert v' K'M'Johny and othersa' the Apex Court has held that the Court should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs' though there can be situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs and that there has to be a conscious application of mind on these aspects' while issuing summons to set the criminal proceedings in motion'

11. All these cases were again discussed in Rikhab Birani and another v. State of lJttar Pradesh and anothef and the Apex Court has quashed the FIR against the accused' ' lzoz:; : scc +z: olzott;13 scc at z 'j zozs rNsc 5 l2 1 l.j1- :,-: f,

12. ln the present case, it is a family dispute with regard to the prope(y and the offences alleged are under Sections 420,46g,471, 506 and 427 of the rndian penar code. The investigation is sti, in progress. lt is also borne out by record that one civil suit is pending between both of them and both the parties are brothers and the basis of the complaint rs with regard to the dispute arising out of partition of the properties left by their deceased parents.

13. ln view of above cited decisions, it is held that the allegations leveled against the accused point out that the case is purely civil in nature and that initiation of criminal proceedings in such facts and circumstances, is not proper. Therefore, the FIR registered against the petrtioners is liable to be quashed.

14. ln the result, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.i and 2 in FIR No.3 of 2025 on the file of p.S.lVlalakpet, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed, _ , [lcettaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYi/ SD/. AHMED ABDU ASSISTANT R LLA KHAN EGISTRAR sEc OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Additional Chj-ef Judicial l\,4agistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House officer,. ps ili;ili, r,i"i"no",. 3. one cc to SRt. ruoHD MuJAiiDai;fiEiH;ivocare 4. One cc to SRt rMoHD A.S|F A^/JAa il;;#; [opuc] 5. Two ccs to the ASS,STANT pu'slr; pRoiEtlroR, Hish court for the ^ State of Tetangana, at Hvoeranal to-ut\vuLv\ 6. Two CD Copies [opuc] rL/PSL *4_ HIGH COURT DATED:04108t2025 ,,- 't _" -t i6 29 AUO T6 I I $ P o + ,l * , I t) F ORDER CRLP.No.5048 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. \sM ti