The High Court · 2025

perusing the Mermorandum of g the, argumenis of Mr' CH and Mr. E. Ga resh, learned Respondent No 1, and None THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION N0.5410 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tfor short tsNSS, 2023) seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No.33g of 2O2S of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, against the petitioner-accused No.2.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.33B of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), s24(4), 329(3), 338, 336(3), s4o(2), 6t(21 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023.

3. Heard Mr.Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is t}re bonafide purchaser of the plot Nos. 62 and 63 in Sy.No.32, 33 and 34 (PT) admeasuring 247.5 Sq.yds and 345.5 Sq.yds., respectively, totalling 593 Sq.uds at Upparpally Vilalge, Rajendra Nagar Manda1 from its vendor vide registered GpA No.11386/E/2O24, dated O6.tt.2o24 and believed that the 2 property ir; genuLne and the GPA holder is having valid (iPA, which was executed by the father of respondent No'2 and agreed to purchase the same for a va-lid consideration in favrrur of the vendor a;-rcl subsequently got registered Sale Deed vide Doc No.9890/12O24 Cated 14.71.2024 registered. at SRO Rajendra Nagar. It is fur.her submitted that none of the ingred: ents of the complaint point:d out the crime committed by the pet itioner and the entire complaint was pointed out against the ac'::used No' 1 and arraying thrr petitioner as co-accused along with accused No' 1 is nothinlS but ;ubjecting the petitioner to face the in'restigation, which is nothin 1 but abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner lurther submits that the petitioner has no knowledge rvhelher the GPA document which has beerr registered was giver: by the de-facto complainant or not. Hence, he seeks to allow this crimi ral Petition.

5. Learned. \ssistant Public Prosecutor by pro':lucing the complaint hlerJ by the de-facto complainant irr Crimt: No.338 of 2025 d.ated 2203.2025 on the frle of the Rajendra lJagar Police Station f<rr the offences under Sections 318 (4),324 1.4),329 (3), 338, 336 (3), 3+O (2),61 (2) of BNS as againsl- the at:cused No.l and the petit.oner as accused No.2 and the crime is at 3 investigation stage. At this stage, interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor and upon perusing the material available before this Court and upon careful examination of the complaint iodged by the de-facto complainant, wherein the name of the petitioner has been referred as that she is the purchaser of the land in question and nowhere it has been stated that the petitioner has committed such fraud or cheating as alleged. Since I I the crime is at the investigation stage, this Court deems it proper to direct the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation in an unbiased manner and strictly in accordance with law. The respondent authorities are directed to proceed with the investigation and follow the guidelines. of Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anotherr. The petitioner/accused is directed to co-operate with the investigating officer by frling reply/explanation to the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and to produce any relevant documents/material papers in defence if any in concluding the investigation. Further, the Investigating Offrcer is directed not to render any coercive steps including the arrest against the petitioner-accused No.2. Further, I (2014) I scc 273 l ! I I i i I l I I 4 the Investigatinti officer is directed to conduct and co::rclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible, preferab\' within a period of three (li) months from today in accordance with law' I I

7. With this c irection, this Criminal Petition is disposred of Penrling r tiscellaneous applications, if any, s eall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUT'/ REGISTRAR becltott oFFtcER To, l.TheXlAddiionalJudicialMagistrateCyberabadof[.irstClassat Rajendranagar Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Stzrtion Hcuse officer, Rajendranagar Police Station, Cybe,rabad District. 3. One CO to lr/lr. Ch Janardhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two C(ls to lh: Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. fC UTI

5. Two Ct) CoPies Sw't/gh \,-"-4 "f7'' {. i l I I I I i i I I I I I i I i i HIGH COURT DATED: 01101;12025 ORDER CRLP.No.5410 ot 2025 6 2 1 ':,' ;!ii?5 6(- 2a t) L ,/ q (-) ''''.1.2 \i. -{ CRIMINAL PI:TITION lS DISPOSED OF 2b