The High Court · 2025

'1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT No.1

2. Konda Venkata Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late Konda Ranga Reddy, aged aboulT2 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-2-597136-41, FIat No. 509. Block- B, SVSS Sankalp Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderabad. and R/o. Anurag Villa, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT No.2/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash FIR No.883 of 2024 dated 12-12-2024 on the file of the Shameerpet Police Station, Cyberabad l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including investigation and arrest in pursuance of FIR No. 883 of 2024 dated 12-12-2024 on the file of the Shameerpet Police Station. Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 29-04-2025 passed in Crl P.No.5689 of 2025 l.A. NO: 4 OF 2025 Between: Konda Venkata Narasimha Reddy, S/o, Late Konda Ranga Reddy, aged about 72years, Occ: Business, R/o, H.No.'1-2-597136-41 , Flat No Ii09. Block-B, SVSS Sankalp Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderabad. and R/o. Anurag Villa, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ...Peti tioner/Respondent AND

1. Konda Rameshwar Reddy, S/o. Late Ranga Reddy, aor:d about 79 years, Occ. Business,

2. Sulochana Reddy Ala, Wo. Konda Rameshwar Reddy, aged about. 72 years, both residing at. R/o. H. No.3-4-526127, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, Telangana. presently residing at. Gainesville, Florida, United States of ,America. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 3. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prose,:utor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. . . . Res po ndenURes pondent Petition under Section 582 of B,N.S.S. praying that ii the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th,: High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay order dated 29-04-2025 in the ab<rve Crl P No.5689 of 2025 in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing th-. Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. Jithendr:r Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri J. Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION N 0.5689 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners _ accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FrR No.gg3 of 2024 on rhe file of P.S. Shameerpet, Cyberabad registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 351(2) read with 61(2) ot The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS, 2023").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri M.V.pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri J. Ram Mohan Rao, learned counser for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioners counser has submitted that the matter is purely of civil nature. The petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted on the petitioners. He submitte.d that the petitioner No..l is the rightful owner of the rand and has a pattadar pass Book in his name and that the respondent No.2 i.e, the de_facto complainant has sold away his share of the land according to the famiry arrangement and now is making false claim which is not tenable. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 has held a limited right of GpA for a particular period of time over the rand of the petitioner No.'l which was *<evoked in the year 2017 as he was performing wrongful acts. He \ .., - .J 2 I Il),J C J \ r.56119 2025 - further submitted that respondent No.2 is aware of tlrer ownership of the petitioner No.1 over the subject property and that he never cheated the respondent No.2 and that a complaint is filed with all false allegations against the petitioners herein. He therefore, prayed to quash the petition.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has s,ubmitted that the so called Pattadar Pass Books held bythe petitioner l,lo.1 are fake and that without there being any link document, he got his name entered into revenue records illegally by managing the reverrLte authorities. He further submitted that he created fictitious documents, and entered his name into Dharani Portal and therefore, he comp ained rn the year

2022. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 has given GPA to him and without his knowledge, the petitioner herein i; claiming excess land. He further submitted that he gave NOC and ())lpressed that his brother/K. Rameshwar Reddy can take his decisrion on the sale, development or any other transaction as to the property and that all previous GPA's given in his favour are null and void aLnd that GpA got cancelled vide Registered Cancellation Deed dated 27 12.2012 and the said NOC was given to the extent of only Ac.12.1,? % guntas, but whereas now the petitioner is claiming Ac.'l 9.04 guntas which is not 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.5689 2025 correct and that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record

6. The petitioners counsel has relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRLp.No.594B of 2023, wherein the petitioners were facing false allegations under Sections 417, 420, 469, 467, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code and a Criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed against the petitioners, observing that the allegations do not get attracted against the petitioners. ln the present case, it is alleged that the entries in the revenue records are made based on fake documents. The contention of the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner is claiming more than what he gets into his share.

7. The record reveals that there is a land dispute between the brothers. Not only the witnesses, but the entire documents filed by both the parties need to be examined and properly adjudicated after a full- fledged trial. The allegations do point out the offences against the pr-.titioners. The investigation is still in progress. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said process. 4 tt'D.J Crlp.it,-, :,689-2025 8 ln lndian Oit Corporation Vs. NEPC lndia Limitedl the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:-

9. T'he principles relating to exercise of jurisdict on under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure tct quash comptaints and criminal proceedings have been ste'ted and reiterated by this Court in several declslons. To n=ntion a few - Madhavrao Jiwaii Rao Scindia v. Sannhaiirao Chandrolrao Angre [1988 (1) SCC 692], State o:'tlaryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Rupan Detol Baiai vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 1941 Central Bureau of lnvestigation v. Duncans Agro lndus'rres Ltd., [1996 (5) SCC 591], Sfafe of Bihar vs. Raiendra A;lrawalla t1996 (8) SCC 1641, Rajesh Bajaj v. Slale NCT r>f Delhi, t1999 (3) SCC 2591, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 (3) SCC 269], Hridaya Ranian Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [2000 (4) SCC 168], M. Krishnan vs Vijay Kumar [2001 (8) SCC 645], a'ld Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haqt'a [2005 (1) SCC 1221. The principles, relevant to our purpcs:> are : (t) A complaint can be quashed v'/ lere the allegations made in the complaint, even t' tkey are taken at their face value and accepte(l in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any ofrence or make out the case alleged against the acccsttd. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without exantining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailecl inquiry nor a meticulous analysls of the material nor an assessmenf of the reliability-or genuinene's:; of the allegations in the complaint, is warran'ed while examining prayer for quashing of a complant (ii) A complaint may also be quashed wf ere it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as v,hen the criminal proceeding is found to have bee t initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengee nce or to cause harm, or where the allegations are ars;urd and in here ntly improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosectittcn. The 'I20eO 6 Supremc Court Cases 736 t b 5 ETD,J Crlp.No.5689_2025 power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. lf the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given sef of facls may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as a/so a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apaft from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not,

10. While on fhls issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency ln busrness circles to conveft purely civil disputes into criminal cases. Ihrs is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any efforl to set e civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though crimind prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. ln G. Sagar Surl vs. Slate of lJp [2000 (2) SCC 6361, this Courl observed . "lt is to be seen if a matter, which ls essenlia//y of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal 6 E1'D.J ( r)1t.No.5689-_2025 offence. Criminal proceedings are not ,i shoft cut of other remedies available in lavt. Bef,:.tre issuing process a criminal couft has to exerciset irt great deal of caution. For the accused it is a seri:-;is matter. This Couti has laid certain princifles on lhe basis of which High Couri is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdictio.t under this Sectlon has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or othenAJise to sec ure the ends of justice."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificelly held that if the complaints relate to civil wrong or commerr;ial transaction or contractual dispute, it would amount to abuse of process of law and the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to quash the proc:eedings. '1 0. ln Kathyayini v. Sidhafth p.S. Reddf , ther Apex Court has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the sanre subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to q.rash the criminar proceedings if a prima facle case exists against the a:cused persons.

11. ln the present case the allegations point out e prima_facie case against the petitioners hereln that they got wrort entreis made in revenue records based on fake documents. Hencr-., the proceedings cannot be quashed, though the civil disputes are cending between both the petitioners, that cannot be a ground to quast. the proceedings against the petitioners herein as the allegations point cut the offence of forgery against them. Therefore the petition lacks merr ts. 2 2025 Liyelaw ISC) ? l2 7 ETD,J Crlp.No.5589_2025 12 ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. [/iscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at lVledchal, Cyberabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Shameerpet Police Station, Cyberabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri J, Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ORDER CRLP.No.5689 ot 2025 2 | '.P 20ffi a;' DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1t+1 2h lqV