The High Court · 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 Quash the Complaint in C.C. No. 4561 of 2019 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally against the Petitioner/Accused herein in the interest of .lustice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 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 stay all further proceedings in C.C. No.4561 of 2019 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Pratap, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.61O6 OF 2O2l ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed by the accused under Section 4a2 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him b_v the 2"a respondent/ de facto cornplainant in CC No.456 I of 2019 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. Kukatpaliy for the offences under Section l38 read u,ith Section 142 of NI Act.

2. Heard Sri P.Pratap, learned legal aid counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

3. CC No..156 1 of 20 19 on the fiie ol the trial Court u,as registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the !"a respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that when the petitioner offered to se1l the land admeasuring Ac.6-2O Gts., in Sy.No.32 1/A, situated at Dundigal Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the 2nd respondent agreed for the same and entered into an agreement of sale u.ith the petitioner and one Suresh Reddy : I I I I i I I i , i i I I Page No. 2 on 08.01.2018 for a sale consideration of Rs 5'59'00'000/- and paid an advance amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/-' At the time of entering into the said agreement, the petitioner issued cheque bearing Nos.279141 and' 279142 for Rs'50'00'0OO/ each, both drar,vn on Indusind Bank, Kompally Branch in favour of the 2.d respondent as securit5r. In addition to the above, the 2nd respondent paid alother amount of Rs.3O,O0,OOO I on 12.O3'2O18' However' the said transaction could not be materialized within the agreed period since the petitioner and the said Suresh Reddy did not have right title over the property and hence, the 2"d respondent purchased. the said land from its original owner under registered sale deed bearing document No'8828 of 2OlB' dated 18.O4.2018 by paying the sale consideration' Subsequently, upon persistent demands of the 2"'l respondent, the petitioner ald said Suresh Reddy instructed the 2.d responclent to present the cheques issued as security for realization. To the utter surprise and shock of the 2"4 respondent, the subject cheques were returned unpaid upon their presentation with the endorsement "refer to drawee/not arranged for" vide return memo dated 27 'OA'2O18' After \ ,- -.::16.,,-r, - :- .,r' Page No. J informing dishonour of the cheques to the petitioner, the 2"d respondent got issued legal notice dated 19.09.2019 to the correct address of the petitioner demanding to repay the arnount covered under the subject cheques. The said notice u,as returned with postal endorsement "party refused".

4. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences aileged against the petitioner by assigning Calendar Case No.456 1 of 2Ol9 to the complaint and proceeded further. Chailenging the said proceedings, the petitioner fiied the present criminal petition mainly contending that the petitioner agreed to procure the land from the original iardowners ald to arrange registration only but he did not offer the property for sale and hence, the question of entering into agreement of sale or receiving advance sale consideration does not arise. General Manager of the 2"d respondent/ complainant company vtz T.S.Sunder Raman issued acknowledgment dated 08.01.20 18 acknowledging receipt of two security cheques from the petitioner tou.ards collateral securi[z for agent commission for procuring the land with a promise to return the same as soon as the registration takes place and in view of registration of the said land in favour of the 2"a respondent, he is bound to i ! I I I I I t I I I I i I ! I I I I I i I I I i I I I t I I I i I I Page No. 4 return those cheques but on the contrary, the 2"d respondent kept the said cheques with him and after completion of one and half years, fraudulently, by tampering the relevant portions of the ante-dated cheques, presented the same ald got the petitioner implicated in the present case' The tampering of the cheques is very much evident from the fact that the agreement of sale is dated 08'01'2018 but the subject cheques are dated 26.082019 ' This itself makes the 2.d respondent liable for the offence of forgery' Without arraying Y.Suresh Reddy, the first vendor of the property' as an accused, proceeding against the petitioner, who is the second vendor of the property, is bad on law' There is no legally enforceable debt due to the 2"d respondent by the petitioner and hence, the petitioner cannot be subjected for the tribulations of triai and the present criminal proceedings are liab1e to be quashed being malicious apart from abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the present criminal petition mainly contending that there are prima-facie allegations against the petitioner with regard to the dishonour of cheques and his failure in repaying the I I I j I I I I I I I I i I I I' .i t:I I : ,,i.!e i3r+=ry --.r Pase No 5 arnount covered under those cheques even aJter issuance of 1egal notice. The trial Court is proceeding with the trial and the presently the case is pending for framing charges and the trial will reveal the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner and without letting such exercise io be done. the petitioner cannot be declared as innocent at the threshold.

6. This Court heard the respective learned counsel ancl perused the material. The present criminal petition is pending from the year 2O2l and the calendar case is pending from the year 2Ol9 before the trial Court ald the present stage of the case, as reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public prosecutor, is for examination of the accused under Section 251 Cr.p_C As contended by learned Assistant Public prosecutor, prima-facie allegations are levelled against the petitioner/ accused and hence, the same require to be tested on the touchstone of the trial. 7 . At this juncture, it is apt to mention herein that the Honble Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles of law as lai{ down in a number of judgments, including "/ Pagc No. 6 M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd" Vs' State of Maharashtra and othersr that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection' in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, the criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage' quashing of a complaint/FlR should be an exception and rarity than an ordinary rule, ordinarily the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police' However, the inherent power of the Court is recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process under Sectio n 482 Cr 'P 'C' ' and that the power under Sectio n 482 of Cr'P'C' is very wide' but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious' It casts an onerous ald more diligent duty on the Court' I B. When the facts of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the proposition of law laid down in the above decision, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the impugned proceedings' as sought fot', - - I (2020) lo scc l8o Pagc No. 7 since there are no compeliing circumstances warranting interference of this Court. The petitioner can raise the grounds urged herein during trial before the trial Court in the form of his defence. Accordingly, the present criminal petition is 1iable to be dismissed.

9. In view of long pendency of the present case, this Court directs the trial Court to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously and dispose of the calendar case within eight months from today in accordance with lau,.

10. in the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The X Metropolitan [\/agistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Staie of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri P Pratap, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies \k ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 07107t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6106 of 2021 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ("\- ( \3 g ?) i 1 I I ! i I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I Et-iIar= o ii 1r ilE J t Pr-. r4 re. $t' o I I M + .4 .t.'. ,