The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana and another, Represented througtt ils PtllLq _ - . Prosecutor, Of High Court At Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT NO 1 ToutireddyJayasimha Reddy, S/o. Narasimhareddy, aged about 52 years, Occ Doct6r, R/o. Villa no. 39, Hanamkonda, Amity Homes, Warangal Telangana .RES,.NDENT No 2/DEFAcro ..M'LATNANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the F.l.R. no. 416 of 2021 dated 5 0g )-O21 on the file of Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tre High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in the F.l 1 no. 416 of 2021 dated 5.09.2021 on the file of Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District pending disposal of the present criminal petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 BETWEEN The State of Telangana and another, Represented through its Public Prosecutor, Of High Court At Hyderabad. .....PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT AND

1. Toutireddy Narsinga Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, aged about 54 years Occ Doctor, R/o. Villa no. 33, Amity Homes, Prakash Reddy reta, Hanamkonda, Waranga l. 2 Syed lbrahim Qureshi, S/o Mohammad Ahmed Qureshi, Aged about-50 years, O'cc Human Resource Manager, R/o.Hno - 2-7 -699 Excise Colony ,Subedart , Hanamkonda, Warangal. 3 Mohammed Omar Farooq Ali, S/o Mohammed Mahmood Ali, Aged about 29 years, Occ CT Technician, R/o Hnol-2-317/1 , Raharnathnagar, Kazipet Hanamkonda ,Warangal. 4 Kotha Nothi, Wo Vasudeva Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ Office Staff, R/o H.No -35-2-739, Dwarka Sai Nagar, Gopalpoor. 5 Bompally Mukunda Rao, S/o B Deva Rao, Aged abr:ut 71 years, Occ Accounts Manager, R/o H.no -1-7-1689, Srinivas Nagar, Balasamudram. 6 Katterapalli Rajitha, Wo Katterpalli Vijay, Aged about 32 years, Occ Nurse, R/o H.No2-76 Sangem Mandal, Gadepalle Warangal. 7 Nisha Nooreen. Wo Mahammed Naseer Ahmed, Aged about 26 years, Occ Accountant, R/o H.No 3-2-101, Raipura Hanamkonda Warangal 8 Nandikonda Vamshi Krishna, Sio Nandikonda Sudharshan Re Aged about 31 years, Occ Software, R/o Hno - 1-108, Chityala Mandal, Ankushapur, Warangal. 9 Nanneboina Sampath, S/o Nanneboina Rajanna, Aged about 32 years, Occ Opthal Technician, R/o HNo 28-'l-230, Yadava Colony, l-lasanparthyMandal, Pegadapalle Warangal. '10 Kotha Vasudeva Reddy. S/o Ram Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ Employee, R/o H.No -35-2-739, DwarkaSai Nagar, Gopalpoor. ..... RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 1 ToutireddyJayasimha Reddy, S/o. Narasimhareddy, aged about 52 years, Occ Doct6r, R/o. Villa no. 39, Hanamkonda, Amity Homes, Warangal Telangana .. --. -RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 oI 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 granted in crl.P.No. 340012022 on the file of Honble High Court dated 12.04.2022 l.A. NO: 1OF 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 extend the order dated 1210412022 in crl P No 3400 o1 2022 in the present crrminal petition until further orders This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sRl ARVIND GEEDIPELLY representing vlvEK JAIN ,Advocate for the Petitioners and the SMT S |\4ADHAVI ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of SRI NADIPALLY ANANDA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION N 0.3400 0F 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 seeking to quash the proceedings againsl them in FIR No.416 of 2021 pending on the file of the Statior House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal, registered for the offences under Sections 341 , 417, 420,379,294-8, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

02. Heard Sri Arvind Geedipelly, learned counsel representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the pertitioners and Smt.S.tVladhavi. learned Assistant Public Prose:utor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial responderrt No 2' Perused the record. 03 Brief facts of the case are that the contplainant and the petitioner-accused No-1 ate brothers The complainant, the petitioner-accused No.1 and their parents are under the partnership of running Jaya Hospital After the death of mother of the petitioner No.1 and respondernt No.2, 2 the petitioner-accused No.1 has been rooking after the affairs of the hospital. As per the contents of the complaint, it is alleged that there is no transparency rn the accounts of the hospital. The petitioner_accused No.1 did not share any amount to the respondent No.2 and did not allow him to scrutiny any documents pertaining to the hospital. The petitioner-accused No.1 colluded with the petitioners_accused Nos.2 to 10 had misappropriated some amounts. The petitioners-accused Nos..l to j 0 also wrongfully reslrained and insulted the complainant. They also committed theft of important documents including certain amount of cash from the chamber of the complainant due to the issue of family ancestral properties. Hence, the complainant requested for necessary action against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 10.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused No..l to 10 are nothing to do with the alleged offences. There is a partnership deed dated 03.08.2000 between the petitioner_accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 with regard to Jaya Hospital affairs wherein it was mentioned that the disputes shall be referred to an arbitrator. The petitioner No..l and respondent No.2 are 3 brothers. The respondent No.2 filed a civil suit ag,ainst the petitioner No.'1 and others seeking partition and separate possession vide O.S.No 53 of 2021, which is pending. There is unexplained delay in lodging the present complaint. Some material facts are suppressed in the present complaint. There rs no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the pad of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 to cheat the complainant. All the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 are purely civil in nature and the respondent No.1- complainant is trying to convert the civil dispute into a criminal dispute. The contents of the FIR do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 341 , 417, 420,379.294-8, 506 read with 34 of lPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.'l to 10

05. On the other hand, learned Assistanl Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this I l 4 juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full- fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 are brothers and there are family disputes between them in respecl of ancestral properties. There is partnership deed dated

03.08.2000 among the petitioner-accused No.1, the respondent No.2 and others with regard to the affairs of the Jaya Hospital. ln the said partnership deed there is arbitration clause which reads as under "12. ln case of any dispute or disputes arising with respect to the affatrs of the partnership business such dispute or drspufes shall be referred to an arbitrator(s)." 07 . lt is also apparent on the face of the record that a civil suit vide O.S.No.S3 of 2021 filed seeking partition and separate possession filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner No.1 and others, in respect of the family ancestral property, which is pending for adjudication before the learned VII Additional District Judge, Warangal District 5

08. On a careful perusal of the record, it evident that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the parlner of the Jaya Hospital and he is working as Doctor in the said hospital. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 10 are the staff mernbers of Jaya Hospital. The issue in the present complaint revolves around the affairs of Jaya Hospital lt is an undisprted fact that there is a partnership deed among the petitioner-accused No l, respondent No.2, their mother and father. Thr: mother of the petitioner-accused No 1 and respondent No.2 died on

29.05.2016. ln the complaint itself it is clearly mentic,ned that after the death of their mother, the petitioner-accus ed No.1 being elder brother had continued his domain and management over the affairs of the hospital. According to the partnership deed, it is clear that the respondent No.2 had also right to access the accounts and management affairs of the hospital. ln the said circumstances, the allegations committing theft of some documents and cables of the medical equipment, is not sustainable in the eye of law Therefore, the contents of the complaint or FIR do not disclose the required ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 379 of IPC 6 09 lt is to be noted that admittedly the present complaint was filed on 05.09.2021 with regard to the offence occurred prior to 18 08.2021. There is unexplained and unreasonable delay of more than 15 days in lodging the complaint. [Vloreover, as seen from the conlents of the complaint there is no mention of pending civil dispute between the parties or initiation of arbitral proceedings vide 1.A.No.402 of 2021 in O.S No 53 of 2021. There are no primafacie allegations of dishonest or fraudulent intention of cheating. Even though if all the allegations made in the complaint are taken on their face value, the required material ingredients for constituting the offences under Sections 417, 420 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners-accused Nos l to 10.

10. Now coming to the other allegations for the offences under Sections 34 1,294(b) and 506 of IPC are concerned, there are no specific allegations of wrongful restraint of the complainant by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10. So also, there are no descriptive particulars or acts of singing, reciting or uttering any obscene song, ballads or words, in or near any public place, by the petitioners-accused Nos '1 to "l 0 annoying the complainant. There are no specific -, 7 allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 as to in what manner they have threatened causing criminal intimidation to the complainant. lt is relevant to note here that mere bald allegations do not constitute any offence

11. On careful scrutiny of complaint ,tontents discloses that there is a family dispute in respect of the ancestral property, which is the source of animosity ltetween the petitioner-accused No l and the respondent No.2 leading to filing of the present complaint. After filing of the present complaint, the petitioner-accused No.1 has filed a complaint dated '15.09 2021 against the respondent No.2 whrch was registered as a case in Crime No 431 of 2021 on the file of the same Police Station Therefore, there is a case and counter case filed by both the brothers against each other. However, all the allegations in the complaint appears to be civil in nature. The rights of the both parties can be decideC in the civil suit or by way of arbitration B

12. ln Stafe of Haryana and others v. Ch-Bhaian Lal and othersl the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held that. "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prdvent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (l) where the allegations made in the First lnformation Repoft or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do nof drsc/ose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under. an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (!) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in supporl of the same do not disclose the commrssion of any offence and make out a case against the accused; ' 'r9gz scc (suPP) 1 335 .,,,,-. ,./ I (!) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted b.4 a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (!) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reerch a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused: (9) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a crimind proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedir,gs and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved parly; (Z) where a crimind proceeding is manifestly attenoed with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a vic.w to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

13. ln the present case on hand., as observed supra, all the allegations made in the complaint revolves arc)und the affairs of the hospital. There is a partnership deed lretween the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and their parents, which contains arbitration clause with regard to any I t disputes of hospital affairs A civil suit vide O.S No.53 of 2021 is pending between the parties seeking partition of the I I 10 ancestral properties. Both the facts of filing of civil suit as well as initiation of arbitration proceedings, are suppressed by the complainant in the present complaint. There is unexplained and unreasonable delay in filing the present complaint. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any alleged offence against the petitioners-accused Nos.l to 10. Therefore, the present case falls withrn the ambit of point No.1 of Ch.Bhajan Lal's case cited supra. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 in FIR No.4'1 6 ot 2021 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closeQl. SD/. MO HD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To, I ii;il; H;;;ofiicer, Hanamionoa"police Station' Hanamkonda Waranqal District

1. T2rheVlIAdditionalJudicialFirstClassMaglstrate'^WarangalDistrict 3 o;;ti t" sni Vrvrx JAIN Advocate toPUCl 4 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for fhe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5^ O19 CQ_S|I NADIPALLY ANANDA RAO, Advocate [OpUC] 6 Two CD Copies I \ VMiPSL W HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 \ I ORDER CRLP.No.3400 of 2022 I I -) /,\' o J 2 t ,tutt ?W + Ap, -a' 1. -crlr^ '_ .;. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q I "\