The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri, Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V' VENUGOPAL 13O of 2023 CRIMINAL PETITIONN o.5 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 ofCr.P.C', by the petitioner/accused' to quash the proceedings in C'C'No' loTO of 2o2O pending on the file of learned III Additional MetroPolitan Magistrate' registered for the offences Malkajgiri, CYberabad' punishable under Sections 42O' 406 and 5O6 of IPC in Cr.No.SS1 of 2O1'9of Keesara Police Station' Rachakonda Commissionerate.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State' Perused the record 3. The allegattons made in the comPlarnt dated 05-11-2019 are that the complarnant fell in love with one Bandi Venkatesh and theY got married about 17 Years lived seParatelY bY ago. After their marriage ' they constructing new house at RamPallY village' ) I I I I I 2 EWJ CrLP.No.S 73O of 2O2S ( On 24-O7-2019 her husband died due to his ill health. After demise of her husband, her brother-in-law, who is the brother of her husband by name Srinu arld others .came to her house arrd took the house documents, Scooty bearing No. TS 08 FR 3477, Almarah keys, bank books, diaries, hospital reports and their marriages evidences. Later, they got registered the said house in the name of her aunt. Therefore, the complainant,s brother-in-law Srinu and others intentiona_lly took the house documents and other documents/evidences and cheated ttre complainant by breaching her trust. Basing on the complaint made by the de-facto complainant, a case was registered in Cr.No.SS I of 2Ol9 of Keesara Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 42O, 406 and 506 of IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.No.IO7O of 2O2O. The petitioner herein filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to quash the same. 3 EW,J Crl.P.No.S13O of 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are totally false and baseless and no material evidence is collected to prove the allegations against the petitioner. Hence, implicating the petitioner as accused for the offences under Sections 42O,406 and 506 of IPC amounts to abuse of process of law.

5. He further contended the respondent No.2, who is aged about 46 years, was already married with one Meesala Appala Naidu, R/o.Kothavalasa, long back and was blessed with two(2) children and by deserting them, she came to Hyderabad and joined as a labour in the workshop of petitioner's younger brother namely Bandi Venkatesh, who is unmarried and after his demise, with a malafide intention, to grab the property of the deceased and to claim his insurance policies, created fake and forged documents claiming to be wife of the deceased even though the said Bandi Venkatesh was unmarried and lived as a bachelor as on the date of his death i.e., on 24-07-2079. l 4 EW,J CrLP.No.573O of 2O2B (

6. He further contended that the alleged incident took place on 25-O7-2OI9 i.e., on the very next very day of death of the petitioner,s brother. namely Bandi .Venkatesh, u,ho died on 24-OZ_2O19, but the complaint was lodged on 05-1L-2Olg as per the FIR contents arld no proper reason was given for inordinate delay in lodging complaint, on perusal of Serial No.g of the FIR reveals that "No delay', in reporting the complaint by the de-facto complainant, which clearly shows that the police by coltuding with respondent No.2, registered a fa_lse case ald filed charge sheet, even though no case is made out for the offences under Sections 420,406 and 506 of IPC. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.1O7O of 2O2O arc liable to be quashed.

7. He further contended that the petitioner,s younger brother Bandi Venkatesh died on 24_07_2019 due to ill health, during his lifetime he purchased a house plot admeasuring 1S0 Sq., yards, situated at Rampally Village through a registered Sale deed and constructed a house and resided in the said house a-lone and his I 5 EW,J Crl.P.No.i73O of 2O23 pa-rents used to visit him frequently and planned to perform his marriage' While so, all of a sudden in the morning hours of 24-07 -2019, the petitioner received a phone call that his brother Bandi Venkatesh died in the hospital. Immediately, the petitioner went to Vijaya Hospital at Nagaram and took the dead body to their native place and performed last rights on the same day the Petitioner itselfandobtaineddeat]:rcertilrcatedated27-07-2019. On the next day i.e',25-07-2019 the petitioner went to the house of his deceased brother at Rampally and found respondent No.2 in the said house' who is not known to till that date, and uPon questing, that she used to work under she informed Bandi Venkatesh, and she used to attend household work and .stayed in the said house and she herself voluntarily handed over the original docr.rments pertaining to the said house and two wheeler in the presence of that locality elders and others. The said house stands in the name of late Bandi Venkatesh' who is unmarried and the petitioner's parents being successors;,da ;oi.rt owners' his father Sri' Bandi 6 EW,J Crl.P.No.s 73O of 2023 \ Anjaiah executed a registered release deed vide \ document No.13924/2079, dated 3O-O7-2019 by releasing his '/z share in favour of his.wife Smt. Bandi Balamma and she become the absolute owner of l.he said house property.

8. He further contended that after receipt of summons dated 16 12 2Ol9 in O.S.No.462 of 2Ol9 bv the petitioner's parents, it is learnt that, to grab the house property of deceased Bandi Venkatesh and his insurance claims and to retain the valuable articles, the respondent No.2 hatched a plan after the death of Bandi Venkatesh, by cooking up a false story of love marriage allegedly performed 17 years back, when the age of deceased was 18 years (as per date of birth 1984) and claiming to be wife of deceased by creating fake documents like Aadhaar Card and voter Identit5r card etc., by entering the name of Baldi Venkatesh as her husband, lodging a false complaint on 05-11-2019 with Keesara Police, that too after lapse of more than three(3) months of death of petitioner's brother. l EW,J Crl.P.No.573O of 2O23 g. He further contended that after lodging of the said complaint, on the basis of fake documents and photographs, she filed suit in O.S.No.462 of 2019, praJnng to declare her as a legal heir of Late Bandi Venkatesh and consequenfly, declare her as owner of the house property and also to declare the release deed vide document No.L3924 12019, dated 3O-O7-2O19 as null and void and the same is pending and the petitioner's parents are defending the same.

10. He further contended ttrat pending the said suit, respondent No.2 created fake documents i'e', Death Certilrcate ld:3231-D973, dated. 1l-O9-2O19 alleged to be issued by Nagaram Municipality, in spite of having death certificate dated 27-O7-2019 issued by Panchayath Secretary of Muthireddygudem Village (which is filed in the suit) and legal heir/family members affidavit, dated 75-O2-2O2O alleged to be issued by III Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, Hyderabad' a EW,J Crl.P.No.s73O oJ 2023 t

11. He further contended that the respondent No.2 is claiming the propert5r as wife of the deceased Bandi Venkatesh, on enquiry it came to light that she was born on 7979 and aged about 45 years and permanent resident of Kothavalasa village, Parvathipuram Mardal, Vijayanagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, which is reflected in her Election Identitv Card issued on

24.L2.2013 b.v mentioning her tlame as Sasubilly Lakshmi, who was already married and she was blessed with two children and to eke out her livelihood she came to Hyderabad and worked in the workshop of the petitioner's brother, taking advantage of death of his brother, hatched a plan to knock out t-l,e property of the deceased. L2. He further contended that C.C.No.33 of 2023 and judgment a:rd decree dated O9-05-2022 rn O.S.No.583 of 2O2O, the documents pertaining to LIC clearly reveal that respondent No.2 is the wife of Meesalu Appala Nardu and as such claiming to be wife of Late Bandi Venkatesh and filing of complaint against the petitioner herein for the 9 EW,J Crl.P.No.5730 of 2O2S offences under Sections 420,406 and 506 of IpC is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further contended that respondent No.2 lodged.a false complaint against the petitioner and upon which a case was registered in Cr.No.623 of 2022 on the file of Keesara Police Station for the offences under Sections 44g, 422 and 379 of IPC and after investigation, the same was closed as False as such continuing the proceedings in C.C.No.1070 of 2020 against the petitioner is illegal and liable to be quashed. He further contended that he is falsely implicated in the case basing on vag.ue, omnibus and bald allegations for the pu{pose of harassing the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against him.

13. On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as per the averments of the complaint, petitioner/accused along with others went to the house of respondent No.2 and highhandedly // .,... 10 EW,J Crt.P.No.s 730 oJ' 2023 took the documents pertaining to the house of the \ deceased ancl his two wheeler, unless and until the tria-l 1S conductecl, the truth cannot be , elicited. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

14. At this stage, it is relevalt to note the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and. others us. Bhajanla.l , whereunder the following categories u'ere illustrated, wherein the extraordinar5r power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised b-r' the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The said categories are extracted as under '1. Where the allegations made in the First Informotion Report or the complaint, euen if they are.taken at their face ualue and accepted in their enttretA do not pima facie constitute ang offence or make out a co.se against the accused-.

2. Where the allegation-s in tLe First Infonnation Report and otlLer mateials, if ang, acct;mpanging the I'IR do not disclose a cognbable offence, justifuing an inuestigation bq police offtccrs under Section 156 (1) of the Code except und.er an order of a Magistrate uithin the puruieu of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 11992 supp (1) SCC 33s ,/

1.7 EW,J CrLP.tlo.S73O of 2023 3- Where the uncontrouerted allegations made in the FIR or comploint and the euidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of ang offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute o cogni.zable offence but constitute onlg a non-cognizable offence, no inuestigation is permitted bg a police officer tuithout an order of a Magi,strote as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlg improbable on tlrc bo.sis of tuhich no prudent person can euer reach o just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the acalsed.

6. Where ttere is an express legal bar engrafied in ang of the prouisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under uhich a ciminol proceeding k instituted) to the in-stitution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or tuhere there is a specifrc proubion in the Code or the concemed Ac| prouiding efficacious redress for the grieuance of the aggieued partg.

7. Where a criminal proceeding rs manifestlg attended uith mala fide and/ or tuhere tLrc proceeding is maliciouslg instituted uith an ulterior motiue for toreaking uengeance on the occused and tuith a uieu to spite him due to piuate and personal grudge." In view thereof, the allegations against the petitioner are considered to be vague. Therefore, it can be said that category No.l as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is --- - I i r I t2 EW,J CrLP.No.S730 oI 2023 conducted, no purpose would be served as there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/ accused' \ \

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the, proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C'C'No' 1070 of2o2opendingonthefileoflearnedlllAdditional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri' Cyberabad' registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420' 406 and 5o6ofIPCinCr.No.SS1of2o|gofKeesaraPoliceStation, Rachakonda Commissionerate are hereby quashecl' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. /iTRUE COPY// Scl/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR ION OFFICER -a To,

1. The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. at Malkajgiri, Cyberabad 2. The Station House Officer, Rachakonda Police Station, Keesara 3, Two CCs td the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies GE/kam g HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 I ORDER CRLP.No.5130 of 2023 '1iiE SI4 'a<w \r. \.'",+ \ 4 APIi 20fr 1'; i,4;Cr , ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (qr4.'t "%a* J