The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FlR. No. 116 of 2O21, of P.S. Adibatla. Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, as against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Seclion 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners/Accused No's. 2 and 3, in F.l.R. No. 116 of 2O21, of P.S. Adibatla, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENUMADHAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.I and of Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLT SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL N TI No 3 o ORD ER: The present criminal petition is fited under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in F.l.R.No.1 16 of 2021 on the file of the Police station Adibatla, Rachakonda commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.05'2021 at l2:oo hours, the Police station Adibatla, Rachakonda commissionerate received a Court referred complaint from the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at tbrahimpatnam, in which, the complainant stated that he belongs to middle class family and residing at Yerereddlagud'em village, Gurrampode Mandal' Nalgonda District. The complainant with an intention to arrange a residence near to Hyderabad, for his children higher education searched. to purchase a Flat, then in ttre year 2018' he saw an advertisement board at Ragannaguda village, Turkyamjal Municipality and contacted accused No.1. Accused No.l stated that he is constructing a semi apa-rtment by obtaining a development agreement from accused Nos'2 to 4' After ^ - negotiations, the sale consideration was settled and an agreement 2 was entered into by the complainant with a.ccuS€rl No.l and has paid a sum of Rs- 10,50,000/- as advance. Accused No.l completed the structure and in the middle of construction, he assured to complete the construction, but due to covid-lg the construction has been stopped by him in middle stage. Accused No.1 has not started the construction work and he came to know that accused No. r has filed a caveat petition against accused Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to the above propert5r and arso rrred a suit for specific performance against accused Nos.2 and 3 uid.e o.S.No.326 of 2o2o on the fire of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, by suppr-essing the real facts- Accused Nos.2 and 3 arso filed o.S.No.439 of 2o2o on the file of the -tunior civir Judge at l{ayathnagar by wrongly ciaiming injunction against accused No. r by suppressing the development agreement a,d also the agreement of sares entered between the complainant and witnesses herein also. Accused Nos.1 to 4 by colluding wittr each other and only to deprive the legitimate rights of the complarnant, filed the above suits only with an intention to cheat the innocent people. The complainant and witness persons approached accused No-2 in the rnonth of January but accusecl Nos' 1 to 4 harze co[uded with each other and given e,vasivc reply to us and mo*)over they threatened with dire "orr"aqr.)nces. "'''' l '---' \ai 3

3. As per the orders of the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate of lbrahimpatnam urde Dis.No.lO77 of 2021, registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2021, under Sections 42O,406, 506 rlw 34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners woUld submit that the entire allegations in the said complaint are looked into; they do not constitute any offence. A suit for perpetual injunction uide O.S.N o.439 of 2O2O is filed by the petitioners against accused No.1 and accused No.1 filed a counterblast suit uide O.S.No.326 of 2O2O, for specific performance, this itself shows that accused No.1 himself is not having any title over the property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner No.1 had filed a complaint before the police, L.B.Nagar stating that she had 4 not executed any development agreement in favour of accused No.1 and said accused No.1 created false zrnd fabricated documents to gain wrongfully. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered FIR.No.255 of 2o2l on ol.os.2o2l, for the offences punishable under section 42o, 46g and, 4i,1 of lpc. This clearly shorvs that accused No. i in collusion with respondent No.2 has approached the station l{ouse of{icer under section 1s4 (l} cr.P.c and the superiirtenden[ of police under section r5a(3) of cr.P.c filed a complaint and referred the same to the learned Magistrate under section ls6(3) of cr.p.c and registering the same as FIR.No.I15 of 2o2l b5,' Adibatla p,clice station, Rachakonda commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District is nothing but abusc of proce ss of lar,t,.

7. Learned counsel appearing for r.espondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 saw arr advertisement board at Ragannaguda village, Turkyan:jal Municipality a:ad contacted accused No.l for purchasing a Flat. After negotiations, the sale consideration was settled and an agi-eement was en.tered into by the complai^ant with accused No.l and has paid a sum of Rs. 1o,5o, oao / - as adrrance. Accused No. 1 completed the structure, but due to-covid-19 the corrstruction work has been fD 5 stopped. After lifting the lockdown also accused No.l has not started construction work, when the Same was questioned, accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos.2 to 4 has cheated the complainant and other innocent people and started threatening them with dire consequences.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the crime is at the investigation stage and interference of this Court at this stage is \ unwarranted. Due to stay in operation, the investigation could not carry on. Unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted by examining the evidence and facts before it, truth will not be elicited. Hence seeks to dismiss this criminal petition.

9. Sections 42O, 406. 506 rlw 34 of IPC and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. reads as under: Section 42O of IPIC: Cheortlng o;nd dtshonestlg lnducing d.elltrcry of propertg whoeuer cheats and thereby distwnestlg indues the person deceiued to d.eliuer ang propertg to ana person, or to make, qlter or destrog the whole or ang part of a ualuable seanritg, or angthing uthichk signed. or sealeil, and whichis capa.ble of being conuerted^ into a ualuable seanritg, stlo,tt be punislrcd tttith tmprisonment of either d.escription for aierm uhich mag extend to seuen years, aryd shall also be liable to fine. 6 sectfon 42o of lprc: F.tnrshmcnt for criminal breac}. of ttttst whoeuer commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished. with imprisonment of either descriptionfor a term tuhich mag ertend to three Aears, or withfine, or with both. Section 506 intimido;tion of IPC: F.tnishmr,nt for crlminal whoeuer ammits the offence of criminar in.timid"ation shntt be punished with imprbonment of either d.esciption for a term uthich may extend to two Aeqrs, or with fine, o, ,t ith both Section 156(3) of Cr,p.C: police officer's pourer ta irutestigate cognizable case. AnA Magtstrate empowered. under section 190 mag ord"er such an inuestigation as aboue-mentioned".

10. The [[on'ble Supreme c]or-rrt in state of Earyana vs. Bhajanlalt held as follows; "The Jbllowirq categories of ccses can be statecl by u,ag of iltustration wherein the extraorcinary pouer und.er Afticle 226 or the inherent powers und.er section 4g2 crpc can be exercis;ed. bg the High court either to preuent abuse of the pro@ss of any court or othenatse to secure the end"s o-f justice, though it mag not be posstble to lay down any preciset, clearlg defined and sufficienttg chnnnelised" and inJlexible gu.id"elines or r.tgid formulae and to giue an exhaustiue tist of myrtad. kinds o;f coses wherein such power should" be exercised.: x | 1992 Suppteeggy(l) SCC 335 \ \ L 7 (1) Where the atlegations made in the first information report or the complaint, euen if theg are taken at their face ualue and accepted in their entiretg do not prima faqie constififie ang offence or make out a case against ttLe acansed' (2) Where th.e altegations in the first information report and other materials, if ang, accompanging the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, iustifying an inuestigation by police offtcers under Section 156 of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate utithin the puruieu of kction 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontrouerted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and" the euidence collected in supportof tlrc same do not disclose the commission of ang offence and malce out a case against the acansed- (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not onstihtte a cognizable offence but constitute onlg a non-cogni'u'ble offence, no inuestigation is permitted bg o polie oJJicer without an order of a Magistrate as corfiemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code. (5)WheretteallegationsmadeintLteFlRoroomplaintareso absurd and inherentlg improbable on tlrc basfs of which no prud.ent person can euer reach a just onchtsion tlwt there is sufftcie nt ground for pro ce eding ag ain'st tle auused' (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafied in ang of the prouistons of the Cod.e or the concerned Act (under uhich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or uiere there is a specific prouision in the Cod.e or the conertted Act, prouiding efficacious red.ress for the grieuance of the aggneved partA' (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended uith mala fide and-/or uhere the proc*eding is mnliciously 8 in'stituted with an urterior motiue for ureaktng ue,ngean@ ort the accused and. with a uiew to spite him due to priuate and personal grudge." 1 1' Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and upon perusing the materiar availabre on record, this court is of the opinion that there are cir.il proceedings pending as against the petitioners herein and accused No.l. wherein, respondent No.2 he himserf admitted that he has entered into an agreement of sare with onry accused No. r but, no where he mentioned about the petitioners herein. Therefore, the petitioners herein are no wav related to the sa_icr dispute. The entire allegations in the said complaint do not constitute any offence' Relving upon the judgment passed by the Hon,ble Apex court in the matter of state of Haryana vs. Bhajantal (supra) is of the opinion that that there is no material evidence to prove that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences. In the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners herein, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial. L2' Accordingly, the crirninal petition is alrowe d ancr the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in F'r.R.No.l16 of 2,o2i on the lile of the porice staticn Adibatra, \ \. 9 Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. I To, SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER

1. The XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at lbrahimpatnam, Raqga Reddy Dist.

2. The Station House Officer, Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda. 3. OneCC to SRI K VENUMADHAV, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

5. Two CD Copies. 6. One CC to Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate IOPUCI SM/psl Yy - HIGH COURT DATED: 01/0812025 ORDER CRLP.No.4853 of 20ie1 e J L) ?[ no,v 6 * * qE-!,r.-E*.c-- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION "rde ..r.