In A.M. Mohan v. The State represented by SHO and Orsl, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows

I Lhg gtgle of Tetangana, pubtic prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad 2 Mohd. Mahaboob, s/9 Mohd pasha Miya, ngJo so years, caste trllusrim, Occ- Business, Rio H.No.10-2-g-1.,l9/1 , AC duards,'shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad ... COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT Petition under section 492 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar'pelition, the Higt court;;y oe qlT.gq19 quash the proceedings in cc.No. i130 of 2018 on the-fire of Raoitr:inat Judicial First class Magistrate, sangareddy, in firing of the cRLp. No. of 2oid,; l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under section 4gz of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar'p&ition,the High court mav ue pleased to stay all further proceedings incruding appearance of t-he petitioneis in cc.No. 1130 of 2018 on the fire oi Aoaitiona] Judiciar First crass rr,lagisiiate, Sangareddy, l.A. NO:2 OF 2024: Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal-pJtition,the High court ;;y be pleased to AMEND ALL the CAUSE TtrrLES in criminat petition,"as , - ir j Cri,ot" venkata Ramaiah, s/o. G. chengaiah, Aged about 7g years, occ: ausin6ss, nlo. H. No. 7-1-621t263tF101, Kamata ltivas, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. (2f CLnOU Subramanyam, S/o. G. Chengaiah, Aged about 77 years, Oic: Business, R/o. Flat no. 304, Tirumala Gardens, Road no. 11, Banlara Hills, HyderabaA. ff.,fSienO Of (1) Gundla Venkata Ramaiah, S{o, G Chengaiah, Aged about 62 years,bcc: Business, R/o. H. No. 7-1-621r263tF10'1, Kamita rrtivai, s.R. Nrgai, i{yJeiabao. -O"", (2) .Gundla_Subramanyam, S/o. G. Chengaiah, Aged about 6S'y.li.-, Business, R/o. Flat no.304, Tirumara Gaidens, R-oad no. rr, ajnlara firrs, Hyderabad. wherein the age of the Accused ipetitioners herein has been wrongry mentioned as 62 and 59 instead of 7g and 77 or else,; This Petition co'ning on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurrents of sri NANDITA GUHA ,Advocate fcr the petitioners and sri trl.vivekanlnda Reddy, noor prori. Prosecutor on beharf r:f the Respondent No. 1 and none appeai ror tre Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.3853 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is frled to quash proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1130 of 2018 on the hle of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

2. The basis for hling the charge sheet against the petitioners herein is the complaint hled by the 2.d respondent. The a,llegation against the petitioners is that the 2.d respondent purchased the plot No.7 in Sy.No.528 and 529 to an extent of 827 sq.yds in Vijetha Layout of Muthangi Village, Patancheru, Sangareddy District, near Bombay Highway. The plot was purchased from these petitioners and A3 on 21.O1.2OOO. He constructed a family portion and compound wall, covering the entire plot, and a-lso obtained an electricity connection in the year 2OO2. The said property was used as a godown.

3. There was a layout of the land in Acs.19.13 guntas 1n Sy.No.528 and 529, after obtaining permission from the Grampanchayat. According to the complainant, the petitioners and 2 A3 have again sold the entire extent of the land as agricr.rltural land to several others. Since the plot was initially sold to the 2"d respondent and later the layout land was -sold a.s al :rgricultural land to third partie's;, the 2"d respondent was cheated. The police registered the complaint under Sections 406 and 42O of IPC and filed a charge sheet for the said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks quastring of the proceedings on the lbllowing grounds:

1. The alleglations against the petitioners are civil in nature.

2. Section .12O ,tf IPC is not attracted, as there isi no wrongful loss to the complainalt or wrongful gain to the petitioners.

3. There is no misappropriation or breach of trust r.rn the part of the petitioners;.

4. By no stretch of imagination, will fl-re cornplainant's property be affected, as his plot was not sold.

5. On the other har-rd, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that, having knowledge abc,ut the purchase of the plot by the 2.,,1 .l.espondent, 3 the petitioners have deliberately sold the land to third parties, resulting in wrongful loss to the complainant. 6 In A.M. Mohan vs. The State represented by SHO and Orsl, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: "It could thus be seen that for attracting the prouiston of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, tLe FIR/ complaint must show that the ingredients oJ Section 415 of Indian Penal Code are made out and the person cheated must haue been dishonestlg induced to deliuer the propertg to anA person; or to make, alter or destrog ualuable secuity or anything signed or sealed and capable of being conuerted into ualuable secuity. In other tuords, for attracting the proui.sions of Section 42O of Indion Penal Code, it must be shou.n that the FIR/ complainf discltrses; (t) The deception of ang person; (ii) Fraudulentlg or di.shonestlg inducing that person to deliuer ang propertg to any person; and (iii) Dishonest intention of the Accused at the time of making tle inducement."

7. Ingredients of Sec 406 IPC: The Honble'supreme Court in Deepak Gaba v. State of U.P.'2 held that: " Section 406 IPC prescibes punishment for breach of trust tuhich mag extend to three Aears or tuith fine or uith both, uhen ingredients of Sectiort 4O5 IPC are sotisfied. For Section ' MANU/SC/O227 12024,2O.O3.2O24 - SC ,(2023], 3 SCC 423 4 406 IPC to get ettracted, there must be ciminal brea<:h of ttust in terms of Secti<.tn 4OS IPC.

15. For Sect,ion 405 IPC to be attracted, the follot'uing lta; rc to be established: (a) the acatsed uas entntsted u.tith propertg, or entrustzd with dominion o uer propertA' (b) the aca,,.sed had dishonestlg misappropiated or co,tuerted to their ou)TL ltst? that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that propert! or tuilfuIlg suffer ang other person to do so; (c) such mi.;appropiation, conuersion, use or disposal slnuld be in uiolation o-f anA direction of laut prescribing thet n'tode in tuhich such trust is to be discharged, or of ang legaL c:ontract uthich the person has made, touching the disc:harge of such trust." In the cas,3 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, :he Hon'ble

8. Supreme Court hai laid down following seven categories of cases in which the court car quash criminal proceedings:

1. Where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entireQr, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the FIR and other mater:ia1s, if any, accompanf ing the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justi$ring ,an investigation by police ofhcers under Section 156(l)of the Code except under an order of a Magisl.rate within the purvie'"ir of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected rn support of the salne do not djsclose the commission ol any offence and make out a casr: r:rgainst the accused. '1992 AIR 604 5

4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police oflicer, unless a- Magistrate has issued an order for the salne, as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR are absurd to the extent that no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufhcient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is instituted, with regard to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efhcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended'with mala hde intention and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and / or personal grudge. g. As seen from the sale transaction, it is not specifica,lly stated by the 2"d respondent that his propert5r was sold, or that any person has either claimed the plot of the 2'd respondent or frled any. suit against the 2'd respondent claiming his plot. When the interest of the 2.d respondent is safeguarded and no one has claimed his land, i the question of attracting the ingredients of either cheating or misappropriation does not arise. The registration of land and possession in favour of the 2'd respondent is neither disputed by t 6 anyone nor was the possession disturbed in iarry malner whatsoever. IrL tht: charge sheet, only three persons wr:re examined, who are, the i2"d rr:spondent, another friend of the 12., respondent, and the invesr-igar,ing officer. The continuation of the trial will not serve any useful purpose. since the 2.d respondr:nt hasr not suffered any wrongful lcss. and his ownership and posse.ssion rre not being questioned by. aryone, the Criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot continue.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Cr.rnsequently, pending miscel.ane.ous applications, if any, shall stanrl <:losed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR U SECTION OFFICER

1. The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy 2. The Station Hour;e Officer, Sangareddy p.S., Sangareddy 3. One CC to SRI NANDTTA GUHA Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to PUE.UC PROSECUTOR, High iourt at'Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies 1 \ t VSM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0914412025 a) (EToe-( .s s.. \\ \u\- G 9 .,i.' \ I ) ,r'l ;/ ::i,, o! +HJ ORDER CRLP.No.3853 ot 2019 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION /