The High Court · 2025

Akula Sudharani Wo Srinivasa Rao, aged about 50 yeir s, occ. Housewife k", r : or pup pa i a s ud i n'non 0", r'rea r 5cn6Li sl"niti "A'r El"dJ::.U rlJ,,., Yl Allhiil Yf,' F,X? fi i" 11"r",".il134i'ii8,in,.lfl?f" i, 3!l iJ,?,i[.;o3l?, Puppalaguda Rangareddy d ... Respondents/petitioner/,1 )cused Nos.1 & 2 The State of Telangana through S H O . Alwal police Statrc r. Cyberabad 'ov ri.-ifiil:j'. secutor Hish 33ffii:;!"J;t* Ransareddv-Dist,i.t, ,.bp ...RespondenUResponc r nURespondent petition under section 529 of BNSS praying that in the cirr; mstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitlon, the Hig r Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted vide order dated 15/l l/2025 passed in Crt.p.No.5163 of 2025 and dismiss the Criminat petition with exe nplary costs. This petition comrng on for hearing upon perusing the /emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments r Smt. p.VlJAyA LAKSHMT' Advocate for the petitioner and the sri Jithender rao veeramara, Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondeni No..l, and of Sri S.Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CRIMINAL PETITIO N No . 51630F 20.2s ORD ER: The case of petitioners _ Accused Nos. t and 2 in C.C.No. 698 ot 2023 on the file of the X Additional Mefopolitan Magistrate at Medchal for the aileged offences under Sections 42O and 504 read with Section 34 IpC. is that the 2,,a respondent lodged a complaint on O2.O2.2IJ23 alleging that petitioner No. 1 and her husband Srinivasa Rao (petitioner No.2) and daughter Likitha with an intention to grab the property of their mother, obtained the certificate from the office of the MRO, Alwal misrepresenting that she is the only daughter to her parents and basing on the faise documents, executed a registered Gift Deed on the name of Akula Likitha (daughter of petitioners). On coming to know of the same, the 2nd respondent on 10_11_2022, when asked petitioners,. they threatened to do whatsoever she likes. Rasing on the said complaint, it is stated, police registered FIR No. 79 ot 2023. 1.1. According to petitioners, they are wife and husband and they have been falsely implicated by the 2nd respondent by converting the civil issue into criminal. The 2no respondent also fiied OS No.245 of 2023 on the frle of principal Junior Civil Judge_cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malkajgiri for ). partition of the property left by their mother anc pencling. It is stated, the parents of the i"t petit her life time had given shares of the 2'd responden ' sister viz. Sunitha. Later the 2"d respondent and rr Sunitha ignored their parents and at that junctur No.1 looked after the welfare of her parents' as stlcl lhe same is oner during rnd another rother sister :, petitioner a Will Deed was executed in her favour' Family Members Cert 07 -O|-2O2O rvas obtained from the office of the 14 hcate dated tO by their mother and further, it is registered after the death rf the father of the petitioner in so far as the F amily Members t concerned. Therefore, no accusation can be iLl against petitioners knowing fully-well that petit )ertificate is lributed as oners have nothing to do u,ith the alleged offence' 1 .2. In the instanl case, it is stated, petitir; rers had no dishonest intention, hence Section 42O lPC does r< so far as Section 5O4 IPC is concerned, the 2nl I attract. In respondent created a false story to suit the said offence As per of the complainL, the dispute is purely civil in nat he contents rre and the 2'd respondent with a mala ftde rintention to harar; converted the civil issue into criminal There is n: case made out to connect petitioners into thi: petitioners prima facie false case, therefore, continuation of proceedings against thenr is an abuse of process of law, hence liable to be quashed' - J i.3. It is also stated, previously petitioners hled Criminal Petition No.2569 of 2023 to quash the proceedings in F.l.R.No.79 of 2023 on the hle of the Alwal police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, R.R.District, and this Court disposed of the said Petition on the ground that transactions appeared to be between family members, Investigating Ofhcer should conclude the investigation in FIR No.79 of 2023 on tlle file of Station House Ofhcer, Alwal police Station, Cyberabad without taking any coercive steps against petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 and petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officers, as and when required for the purpose of investigation. It is further stated, Criminal Petition No.7294 of 2023 filed by Accused No.3 in the subject case was allowed on 23.04.2024 quashing the proceedings against her. Hence, the Criminal Petition.

2. By ordcr dated 15.O4.2025, all further proceedings in C.C.No. 698 of 2023 pending on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchai District are stayed against petitioners - Accuscd 1 and 2. 3. The 2"a respondent filed counter stating that Petitioners fraudulentiy procured a legal heir certihcate, identifying Petitioner No, 1 as the sole daughter of their deceased parents, and subsequently used this illegitimate \-/\,. .+ --\.- **J \ document to execute a Gift Settlement Deed in f Lvour of her own daughter, thereby dispossessing Respondent \ c. 2 and her sister of their rightful inheritance. Under the p rise of this fraudulent cerlificate, Petitioner No. 1 exccuted a Ci t settlement deed vide Document No.S123 of 2022 in favour of I :r daughter, Akula Likitha. When confronted, petitioners 1t ;ed abusive language which conduct not only demonstrates th 'ir contempt for lawful proceedings but also underscores thc c r liberate and malicious nalure of their fraudulent ac[s.

3. 1. It is stated further that Petitioners' clzr: rr that their deceased mother personally obtained the far.r ly member certificate is demonstrably false; evidcnce suggests he mother's signatures were procured under coercion and tli s is further substantiated by the stark contradiction betweeir the alleged Will executed on 07 .O2.2O21 , which explicitly rr rknowledges three daughters, and the alleged aflidavit, which inexplicably names only Petitioner No. 1. This discrepanc., irrefutably indicates that both the affidavit and the farr Iy member certificate were obtained through fabricated dorr ments and decertful mean s.

3.2. In Criminal Petition No. 7294 ot 2) 23 filed by Accused No.3 who is none other than thc daughter c 'pelitioners herein, this Court, in the order unequivocally esta >lished that ; {*r':€3i:1.: f Petitioner No. I deliberately suppressed material facts by failing to disclose that her mother had three daughters when obtaining the family member certif-rcate. The sole rationale for quashing the proceedings against Accused No. 3 was her status as a minor-a 17 -year-old at the time the illegal family member certihcate was procured thus precluding any Iinding of her involvement in its fraudulent acquisition. 3,3. It is also stated, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against an accused cannot be quashed merely because the allegations may also disclose a civil dispute between the parties. The mere fact that the allegations also make out existence of civil dispute would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the allegations and material makes out the criminal intention of the case. In this petition, the disputed facts and questions necessitate a thorough examination and resolution through a full trial, hence, it would be inappropriate to prematurely foreclose the opportunity for a just and complete determination of the facts. Thus, the present matter cannot be quashed invoking the inherent power of [his Hon'ble High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

4. Smt. P. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for Pe(lioners relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme o .- \. F5 Court in S.N. Vijagalakshmi a. State of Kant atakal and Usha Chakrabortg u. State of West Bengalz a nd contends that a complaint clisclosing civil transactions ma1 also have a criminal texture, but if a civil remedy is available :L: .d is, in fact, adopted, High Court should not hesitate to quaslL the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Cour .

5. Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsc. respondent, on the other hand, submits that Supreme Court in catena of judgments has corr r; that at the time of examining the prayer for quzL criminal proceedings, the Court exercising ,l jurisdiction can neilher undertake to conduct a r I en[er into appreciation of evidence of a particular ,; regard, he relied on the judgments of the Hon,r Court in Priganka Jaisual a. Sto;te o;f Jhar,k Abhishek Singh. o. Ajag Kumar (Crl.Appeal arisrn5 for the 2"d .l-re Hon'ble ;tentty held hing of the :traordinary ni trial nor Lse. In this e Supreme \ands and out of SLP (Crl) No. 4aO of 2O2S).

6. The main ingredients to corrstitute an of :nce under Section 42O IPC. are deception, dishonest indr-u t ment, and delivery of property or consent to retain property. a perusal of the FIR discloses pnm a facie allegatLon of dishonest i Ltention on ' 1025 t_a\,! suir (SC) l04l - (2021) ls scc rji I2024 SCC Online sc 68i J v l the part of petitioners in getting the propert5r registered in favour of their daughter by making false representation that petitioner No.1 is the sole daughter to her parents. This allegation pima facie attracts the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. Here, it is apt to refer to lhe judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Naresh Aneja u. State of U.P.a wherein it was held that 'it is u.tell-settled that tuhen considering an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Courl cartnot conduct a mini tial but instead is to be satisfied that pima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegotions made Luhich could meet the threshold of statutory languoge'. It is also to be seen the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probaLrle defence that the accused rnay raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. ' 1z.ots1z scc 604 .-- II 8 .- \"F= \i l .\^ '-..:

7. In view of the settled legal position, t us Court at this stage, is not inclined to examine the (t()t rectness or otherwise of the allegations made iq the FIR. .1.te Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Criminal 8 9 closed. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dis,r ,rissed. The miscellaneous Applications, if an_r shall stand A \,.iP,l-flJ$"'ffi^x I/TRUE COPYII S ECTION OFFICER To, '1. The X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at trlr dchal' 2. The Station House Officer' Alwal Police Station' Cyberat r J. 'r Two CCs to thePublic Prosecutor High Court for the Stal -' of Telangana at . r^r, ,.' a One CC to Smt P'VIJAYA LAKSHMI' Advocate [OPUCT 5 One CC to SRI S LAKSHMIKANTH' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies HYderabad [OU l'l NVB/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:12t1112025 ORDER CRLP.No.S163 of 2025 . -:_-:1'::::\- : ,'t:i'.1f^.\_-. i .. u^:).. !'\ -i. ': ,, EEi, XE :.t _i; .'.! rrAl (_,r I ,a- )4 'I -!;. . x-. D!SMlSSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION LO\elt q Xag