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 call for the records relating to Crime No.160 of 2AM on the file of the P.S., Habeebnagar, Hyderabad, and quash the same. i' l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLPMP. NO: 6291 OF 2015) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in Criine No.160/20'14 on the file of the P.S., Habeebnagar, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Crl.P. r.A. NO: 2 0F 2015(CRL MP. NO: 9104 Between: 2015) AND shaheen Hussain Khan, s/o late Zaheeruddin Khan, Age: 5g years, occ: Business, R/o 8-2-603/26, Road No. 10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2/Defacto Comptainant 1. ltrohammad I\/. Khalid, s/o Dr. M.A.Ahmed, Age:43 years, occ: private Service, Presently Residing at USA, rep. by his GFA Hoider Mr. Mohammad saifuddin Farooq, s/o Dr. M.A.Ahmad, Age: 4l years, occ: school secretary, R/o Flat No. 602, H.No.11-3-848t1 to 5, Shaheen Heights, Behind Mallepal'ly Mosque, Hyderabad. 2. Shahnoor F.Hameed, Wo Mohammad M.Khalid, Age.38 years, presenly residing at USA. rep. by his GPA Holder Mr. Mohammad Saifuddin farooq, s/o Dr. M.{.A,hmad, Age: 4r years, occ: school secretary, R/o Flat No. 602, H.No.11-3-84811 to 5, shaheen Heights, Behind Mallepally Mosque, Hyderabad 3. Mohammad saifuddin Farooq, s/o Dr. M.A.Ahmad, Age:47 years, occ: School Secretary, R/o Flat No. 602, H.No.1 1-3-848h to S]Sfrafreen Heights, Behind Mallepally Mosque, Hyderabad ..Respondents/Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & for the State of Andlira pradesh, Hyderabad ... Res pondent No.4/Res pondent No. 1 /Respondent No. 1 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, 1:he High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay passed in Crl.tv,lp.No.6Z91,nOlS in crl.P.No.637812015 dated 14-07-201s on the file of this Hon'bte court. I l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & for the State of Andhra PradeJh, Hyderabad. AND ...petitioner/Respondent 1. Mohammad M. Kharid, s/o Dr. M.A.Ahmed, Age:43, l/ears, occ: private service, Presenfly Residing at USA, rep. by his GpA Hoider Mr. Mohammad saifuddin Farooq, s/o Dr. M.A.Atmad, Age: 47 years, oco. School secretary, R/o Flat Nd. 602, H.No.11-3-848t1to 5, bhaheen Heights, Behind Mallepal'ly Mosque, Hyderabad. 2. shahnoor F.Hameed, wo Mohammad M.Khalid, Age.ll8 years, presenly residing at USA- rep. by his GPA Holder Mr. Mohammarj slituooin rarooq, s/o Dr. M tlLrrd, Age: 47 years, occ: Schoor secretary, R/o Ftrt tto. 602, H.No.11-3-B4Bt1 to s, shaheen Heights, Behind rr,rilr"priv Mosque, Hyderabad.

3. Mohammad Saifuddin Farooq, S/o Dr. M.A.Ahmad, Age:47 years, Occ: School Secretary, R/o Flat No. 602, H.No.11-3-84811to 5, Shaheen Heights, Behind Mallepally [\Iosque' Hyderabad ..Respondents/Accused 4. Shaheen Hussain Khan, S/o late Zaheeruddin Khan, Age: 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o 8-2-603/26, Road No. 10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. (R4 is not necessary pafi) ...RespondenUComplainant 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 vacate the stay in Cr|.M.P.no.629112015 in CrI.p.no.637812015 on the file of Honble High court dated. 14.07.2015. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel representing N4s. Vladimeer Khatoon, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S. Someshwar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER , TIIE ITON'BLE SRI JIISTTCE J.SR.EENT\/AS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.637a of 20 15 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the code of crirninal procedure, lgr3 (for short, 'cr.P.c.') by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.l to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No.16o of 2or4 of Habeebnagar police Station Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under llections 406 an:d 42O r/w 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1gr1o (for short IPC). 2- Heard Sri D.prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Ms. vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.someshwar Rao, Iearneci respondent No.2 / de facto complainant and Sri M.vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public l)rosecutor, r<:ounsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1_State.

3. Brief facts of ttre case:

3.1. The Respondent No.2 has frled private ct>rnplaint on 25.06.2014, ort the file of XVI Additional chief rrletropolitan Magistrate at Nampal1y, Hyderabad, stating that rcspondent 2 No.2 and the petitioners are the absorute owners and possessors of house property bearing Nos.1 1-3:849/ 1 to S, situated at New Mallepally, Hyderabad, pr.rrchased under a registered sale Deed vide Document bearing No. s2g of 2OO5 for a. total consideration of Rs.SO,OO ,OOO / -. Subsequently, the petitioners and respondent No.2 entered. into a Development Agreement-cum-lrrevocable General Power of Attorney, dated 29.l2.2OO5 , registered as Document No. 4433 of 2oo5 before the Sub-Registrar, Golconda, and Hyderabad, agreeing to develop the said property and share the built-up a.rea in the ratio of 40:60 between the petitioners and respondent No.2 respectively. Respondent No.2, in addition to the initial payrnent of Rs.4O,OO ,OOO / - made at the time of purchase, and continued to pay arnor..nts frorn tirne to timerand paid a total su.rn of Rs.1,68,00,000/- to the petitioners towards the prrrchase of their 4oo/o share, and varid" receipts were issued by them acknowledging the sarne. As the petitioners were residing in the USA, they executed. a. General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA), dated 2O.OI.2OO7, in favour of respondent No.2, authorizing him to sell their 4oo/o share of ttre developed property. Acting upon the said GpA, respondent No.2 sold several flats to various purchasers ,:\,, a J and presented the sale deeds for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Golconda. However, the Siub-Registrar refused to register the sale deeds on the grorrnd that the GPA had been cancelled by the petitioners, which is illegal and void, as the said GPA was irrevocable.

3.2. Respondent No.2 further averred that thr-- petitioners, with dishonest intention, have cheated and caused wrongful loss to hirn, and therefore, respondent No.2 fiIer1 the present cornplaint seeking action against the petitioner:; for offences punishable under Sections 406, 42O, and 2Ct4 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Based on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the same to the station House Officer, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in turn, the said cornplaint was registered as crirne No.16cf of 2oL4 for the offences punishable und.er sections 4C,6 ancr 42o r / w 34 of IPC.

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners:

4.1 Learned senior counsel submitted that petitioners have not cornrnitted any offence and they were falsely implicated in this crime. The nature of allegations .j- ' J *-/ 4 levelled against the petitioners in the complaint is purely civil in nature. To resolve the civil d.isputes, respond.ent No.2 lodged a private complaint against the petitioners by making false allegations. Even according to the allegations rnade in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 406 and 42o of lpc are not attracted against the petitioners.

4.2 He fi-rrther subrnitted that the petitioner No.1 filed a complaint against respondent No.2 and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 474, 42o, 4zZ r/w L2o-B and 506 of Ipc. Based on the said cornplaint, crime No.66 of 2oo9 was registered by the station House officer, Habeebnagar Police Station and the Investigating officer, after conducting investigation, filed final report closing the complaint as it is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the sarne, pbtitioner No.1 filed protest petition and the trial court after following the procedure and recording the statement, taken cognizance and issued surmrnons in c.c. No.53o of 2072 and the learned xvl Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, convicted respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 42o r/w s1l of Ipc through judgment, dated 22.01.2025. Aggrieved by the ? .) 5 sarne, respondent No.2 fiIed criminal Appeetl before the learned Sessions court and the petitioner No.1 arso I-rled crirninal Appeal and the sarne are pending. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint on 25.06 .2oL4 as a counter blast and the learned Magistrate without taking into consideration the above said facts sirnply referred the matter to the police for investigation and. accordingly, police registered the crirne and the'sarne is contrary tc, law.

4.3 He f,rther submitted that respo,dent No.2 slrppressed the factum of pendency of the crirninal and civil cases between the parties, in the present co.roplaint. He further subrnitted. that in respect of the same alegations, civil disputes are pending between the parties a:nd the same has to be adjudicated and decided in the civil l?rroceedings. Respondent No.2 by giving criminal colour to civil disputes lodged the present complaint against the petitioners and the sarne is not perrnitted under law. Especiarly civil cases are pending between the petitioners and respondent No.2 before the competent civil court and also before this court in cccA No.93 and 94 of 2ooz. Hence, continuiltion of the proceedings in crime No.16o of 2ol4 against the petitioners is the clear abuse of process of law and. the same is riable to 6 be quashed.

5. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

5.1 Per corttra, learned counsel appearing on beharf of respondent No.2 vehemently contended ttrat the petitioners entered into a Development Agreement-cum-GpA with respondent No.2. According to the Development Agreement, respondent No.2 is entitled for 600/o share and the petitioners are entitled for 4oo/o share. Respondent No.2 had developed the property. The petitioners requested hirn to sold their 4oo/o share on the ground that no purchasers are corning forward" to purchase from them. Accordingly, they executed GPA, d ated 2o.o l .2ooz , in favour of respondent No.2 and in turn he paid huge amount of Rs.1.68 crores to thern. Subsequently, ttfe petitioners cancelled the GPA intentionally and issued. notice to the Sub-Registrar not to entertain any transaction in respect of the said properties. Pursuant to the sarne? sub-Registrar refused to register sale Deed. etrestioning the same, respondent No.2 filed writ Petition No.2o7gr of 2o1o and the sarne is pending before this Court. 5-2 He further submitted that frorn the very inception .,1 7 there was a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 entrusted a hr.ge amount of Rs. 1.6g Crores to the petitioners, and the petitioners executed GpA in respect of their share and thereafter, they intentionally cancelled the GPA. There are specific alregations levelled against the petitioners and that the offences und.er Sections 4o6 and 42o of IPC are attracted, especially on the gror_rnd that the F-I.R- is not an encyclopaedia. He also submitrs that rnerely because not rnentioning about the pendency of civil cases in the complaint, the petitioners ?re not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. whether thr_. allegations levelled against the petitioners are true or not, will be revealed during the course of investigation. In s,pport of his contention, he reHe& upon the 5.3 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in M/s Neeharika rnfrastructure Private Limited vs. state of Maharashtra and othersl. Analysis: 6. Having considered the rival submissions mad.e by the respective parties and after perusal of the rnater.ial available ATR2021 SUPREME COURT 1918 8 on record., it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint invoking the provisions under Section 2OO Cr.P.C. on 25.O6.2OL4, wherein he rnade allegations that he presented the Sale Deed before the Sub-Registrar, Golconda, Hyderabad, as G.P.A. holder of petitioner Nos- 1 arrd. 2. Althor.gh the Sub-Registrar accepted the execution and received. the full registration charges including stamp duty, he kept the registration pending and later refused to register the docurnents. On enquiry, it is revealed that the G.p.A. dated 20.ol.2oo7, executed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in his favour, had been cancelled for 4Oo/o share based. on a notice given by the petitioners to the Sub-Registrar. Questioning the same, respondent No.2 filed w.P. No. 2O7a7 of 2O1O and the same is pending before this Court. I

7. The record discloses that. the petitioners and respondent No.2 have entered into Developrnent Agreement on 26.1 1.2OO5 in respect of their properties for d.evelopment and construction of apartments. As per the said agreernent, petitioners are entitled for 4Oo/o share and respondent No-2 is entitled for 600/o share. Thereafter, petitioners have executed GPA in favour of respondent No.2 on 2O.OL.2OO7 arrthorizing hirn to deal vrith their 4O%o share. Respondent '+s \ 9 No.2 had made specific allegations against the petitioners that he Lras entmsted huge amount of Rs. 1.68 Crores pursuant to GPA dated 20.Ol.2OO7 in respect o[ their share, subsequently, they cancelled the GPA intentionatty and issued notice to the Sub-Registrar stating that not to entertain any transaction in respect of their 4Oo/o share and there is a dishonest intention on their part frorn the date of inception.

8. It is relevant to mention that whether there is any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners while cancelling GPA or not and whether the amount of Rs. 1.68 crores was given to the petitioners in respect of their 4oo/o share by respondent No.2 pursr-rant to the GPA, dated 2O.OL.2OO7, are disputed facts and the same have to be reveaLed during the course of investigation only. ,, 9- Insofar as the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the nature of eillegations is civil in natt.re and civil cases are pending between the parties and therefore, initiation of the crirninal proceedings is the clear abuse of process of law, is concernt:d, there are specific arleg4,$ons levelled against the petitioners that there is a dishonest intention on their part frorn the d.ate of 10 /1 inception. It is trite law that mere pendency of the civil cases is not a ground to seek quashing of the crime, rnade in the complaint about especially allegations dishonest intention and rnischief.

10. It is relevant to mention that in lLJagadish v. Udaya I(rrrnar G.S.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts rnay give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing civil rernedy does not bar the initiation of criminal proseclrtion. The Court relied heavily on precedents tike Itarnaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.8.3 and Trisuns Chernical Industry v. Rqiesh Agarwal4, to reiterate that crirninal proceedings cannot be quashed rnerely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. [n I(arnaladevi Agarwal, it was categ. orically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing crirninal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prirna facie criminal offence. The court observed that rrrany acts of cheating occrlr in the context of cornrnercial or financial transactions, and such a ..civil profile" does not strip the act of its *crirninal olrtfit.,, ,. 2 (2020) 14 SCC ssz 3 (20O2)L SCC sss + 11O99) B SCC 686 ^r Sirnilarly in s.iv. vijagarakshmi a. stqte of Karnatak,,s, the Hon',rrle Apex Court has reiterated the s€Lrne principle, stating that civil and criminar proceedings rnay, in raw, proceed sirnultaneously, a criminal prosecution ca' be strstained only where there is a clear presence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction. 1 1- In Neeharika rnfrastructure ,,rrt. Ltd. sltpra., the Hon'rcle supreme court reaffirmed that while exercising powers under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C. or Articl,= 226 of the constitution, High co,rts must exercise ext.reme caution and restraint, as the power to interfere vrith criminal proceedings or investigations is to be u:sed only in exceptionar cases. The court held that the inrzestigation of cognizable offences lies exclusively within the domain of the police, and judicial interference at the stage of investigation should be avoided unless there is a clear ".".,,of abuse of process or manifest injustice. Blanket interim ord.ers s,ch as "no coercive steps to be taken,, were held to be impermissible, as they impede the rawful exercise of the investigating agency's statutory duties. s 202SSCCOnLineSC 1575 G\ t2 L2- This principle was earlier articulated. in state of Haryana w- Bhajan LaI6, where the Hon'rcle sqpreme co,rt emphasized that the inherent power under Section 4g2 cr-P-c. to quash an FIR m,st be exercised sparingly, with great care, and only in the rarest of rare cases wtrere the arlegations do not disclose any offence. The Hon,lcle suprerne court cautioned that such extraordinary j,risdiction should never be invoked to stifle a legitimate investigation or to test the truthfulness of the allegations at a preliminary stage. [t was further clarified that an FIR need not contain exhaustive details; it merely sets the criminal law in motion and empowers the police to investigate and gather rnaterial to determine the veracity of the cornplaint. The present case does not farl under the ambit of rarest of the rare case, as there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. , 13- For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court supra., this court does not find any gro,nd to quash the proceedings in crime No.16o of 2ol4 against accused Nos.l to 3. However, taking into ,__consideration the peculiar facts and circurnstances of the cases and the offences levelled against 6 (L992) Supp(1) SCC 335 i l3 the petitioners under Sections 4C,6 and 42'o of Ipc are punishable with an imprisonrnent up to seven years, the Investigating officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure conternplated under section 4r-A of the criminal Pr:ocedure code, 1973 / Section 3s(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2C23 and the guictelines issued by the Apex court in Arnesh r(urnar vs. state of Biharz. The petitioners are entitled to submit their s;tatements or reply by enclosing all the documents before the Investigating Officer. 14- Accordingly, the crirninal petition is d.isposed of. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are confined for the pLrrpose of deciding this case on1y. As a sequer thereto, misceilaneolls applications, if , &ry, pending in this petition stand closed. + Lol"t I Seczr> To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 Hyderabad. [OUT] The XVI Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magistrate pally, Hyderabad. Nam 2. The Station House Officer, Habeebnagar Police Station, l-lyderabad District. 3. Two CCs to the pu blic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. one cc to Ms. Vradimeer Khatoon, Advocate topucl 5. One CC to Sri S. Someshwar Rao, AdvocatelOeUCl ' 6. one cc to sRr. puBlrc pRosECUToR (icinoro""t" topucl 7. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL B) HIGH COURT DATED i1811112025 ORDER CRLP.No.6378 of 2015 o u- '[ U, s ."$ \ ir;i.fl I DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1O "\