Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 ot 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- entire records in connection with the F.l.R. No.110 of 2020 on the tile of the P.S. Mothkur, Nalgonda District and quash the same against the Petitioner i Accused No.4 I.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Between: The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad ... Petitio ne r/Res po nd e nt AND 1 Peesari Ella Reddy, S/o.Late Rama Swamy Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Advocate, H. No.3-125/41l'l , NIN Colony, Near 1o Fish Building, Boduppal. ...RespondenUAccused

2. Pulasani Aravind Reddy, S/o. Late Ram Reddy Aged about 57 years, Occ- Agriculture and Business, R/o. 12-13-483/30, Street No.14, Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissc,narate, Vayupuri, Beside tvlalkajgiri Court Complex, Secunderabad. ...RespondenU Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the F',igh Court may be pleased to vacate the stay granted in Cr1.P.No.465212020 on lhe file of He ble High Court, dt. 5.10.2020 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O2O Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including drrest of the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in FlR.110 of 2O20 on the file of the PS Mothkur, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the main Grl. Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J KANAKAIAH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4652 0F 2020 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-4, seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR. No. 1 1 O of 2O2O , on the file of P.S., Mothkur, Nalgonda District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for thc respondent - State. Perused the record.

3. The 2"d respondent filed an English typed complaint on

04.OB.2O2O with the Sub Inspector of Police, Mothkur P.S., Rachakonda. In the complaint, the 2"a respondent narrated that he is the pattadar and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.05- 00, having purchased the same on 16.04.2012. His wife, namely Swarajya Laxmi, is the possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.10-00, having purchased the same on 16.04.2012. His son also purchased the land to an extent of Ac.OB- 13 gts. The entire extent ol land was registered with the SRO, Mothkur. It is further aileged that A- 1/Kattekola Ashok fabricated the agreement of sa-le in respect of the property purchased by the 2"d respondent, his wife, and son as if the 2"a respondent had executed the agreement of sale in A- I's favour. A suit was filed for sper:ific performalce vide O.S.No. 16 of 2019, on the file of V Addi:ional District & Sessions Court, Bhongir by A- 1. The Court initi.Jly restricted the 2n,t respondcnt from alienating the property in the light of I.A.No.114 of 2019 filed by A,1. However, after the 2rxr respondent enlered into appearance, the said interim order r,.,as dismissed on

31. 10.2019.

4. After the dismissal of the said I.A., again, A_ 1 planned a 2na round of litigation and sent a notice through Mar.i prathap Reddy stating that, the 2"a respondent has executed a sale deed in respect of his land in favour of A_1. The said agreement of sale was lorged. F urther, a notice was also se nt by this petitioner/Advocate on 03.OT.2O2O alleging that the 2,.1 respondent executed an agreement of sale on 2T .O9.2O17 in respect of thc lancl admeasuring Ac. 1O_00 in favour of A_2. A 1 got issued arother notice to the r.r,ife of 2,d respondent, his wife. Swarajya Laxmi, stating that she executed an a{yeement of sale dated 23.06.2O2O in respect of the land to an ext,lnt of 00 in lavour ol A-3. Ac. i0_

5. It is further allegecl that the property was ncver sold and the documents u,ere fabricated. {. -- .7 I

6. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation of any kind of fabrication on record. The only allegation is that, on the basis of instructions from his client, who are the other accused, the petitioner herein/Advocate has sent 1egal notice asking the 2"d respondent and his wife to register the property.

7. The petitioner was the Advocate and not a party to the civil litigation pending in between the 2"d respondent and other accused. On the basis of the instructions given by his clients, the petitioner had sent the notice.

8. Sending notice on the instructions of his clients is the duty of an Advocate. Since it is not alleged anywhere in the complaint that the petitioner had anything to do with the agreement ol sale, r.r,hich is alleged to have been fabricated by A-2 and other accused, the question of proceeding against this petitioner does not arlse

9. Accordingly, the proceedings against this petitioner in Crime No.11O ot 2O2O are hereby quashed. i0. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// I SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Jr rdicial Magistrate First Class at Ramannape t I

2. The Station House Officer, Mothkur Police Station, Yadadn tshongir Drst. 3. One CC to SRI J KANAKAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies / SM/gh w sle, ] r.*,-:.;;*ii-t HIGH COURT DATED: 1010312025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.4652 ot 2020 li!4/ u^ (( 0 2 ri,r lll25 ! .- o O t L.6 it'tt'it:t tt" t'' *- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION *64 Y.*