Narasimha Chary, S/o v. Chandraiah, Aged about

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Telangana. ...RESPONDENT 2 Nagabandi Narasimha, S/o Late Balaswamy Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o Fl.No. 3-2-56, Chaitanya Shivaji Nagar, Manikonda, R.R. District. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTOCOM PLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused No. 1 to 3 in Crime No 306 of 2020 on the file of SHO Bibinagar P.S. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020 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 against the petitioners accused No. I to 3 in Crime No. 306 of 202O on the file of SHO Bibinagar P.S. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 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 interim orders dated 20.1O.2020 passed in l.A. No. I of 2020 in Crl.P. No. 5'151 of 2020 until further orders. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana. PETITION ERYRESPONDE NT AND

1. Nara Balakrishna, S/o Nara Rangaswamy, Aged about 4g years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No. 202, Sri Tripura Residency, Opposite to lClCl Bank, ft/anikonda, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District- 500073.

2. V. Srinivasula Reddy, S/o. Vanipenta Rami Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 1-67191118, AVanthi Nagar, Near Vijetha school, Motinagar, Hyderabad.

3. Narasimha Chary, S/o V. Chandraiah, Aged about 60 years. Occ. Retired employee, R/o 1,8, F1, RK Nivas, Srinivasa Colony, Behind Harivillu Apartments. Manikonda.

4. Nasabandi Narasimha, s/o Late Baraswamy ^r";:::::.:i:]:1 Business, R/o Fl.No. 3-2-56, chaitanya Shivaji Nagar, f\ranikonda, R.R. AccusED District. (R4 is not necessary party) ...RE SPON D E NT/COM PLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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. 5151t2O2O on the file of Hon'ble High Court, dated 2011012020. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T BALA MOHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E.GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri CHITRALEKHA representing Sri VEDULA SRINIVAS, for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER r\ I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5151 OF 2O2A ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fiied under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 in Crime No.3O6 of 2O2O on the fiie of the Station House Officer, Bibinagar Police Station for the offences punishable urrder Sections 406 and 42O of I.P.C. and pass such other order or orders.

2. Hearct Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for r:espondent No.1-State and Ms.Chitralekha, lean'ned counsel representing Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.O9.2020 respondent No.2 lde facto complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners on the file of the Station House Officer concerned stating that during the month of August, 2017 respondent No.2 was in search of loan for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for his business pu.rposes; that petitioner No.1 promised to arrange a loan for a sum of Rs-50,00,000/-; that respondent No.2 agreed to'- ,: 2 {: avail loan from petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to which petitioner No.l acted as a mediator; that respondent No.2 offered to execute a mortgage deed with respect to the property admeasuring Ac 3.05 gts situated at Bibinagar and on 29.O9.2O21, petitioners asked respondent No.2 to come to SRo-Bibinagar for execution of mortgage deed stating that he would be paid money; respondent No.2 allegecl that the petitioners forced him to execute AGPA bearing document No.5836 oi 2017. Latet, a sale deed vide document bearing No.6166 of 2OL7 was also executed. Respondent No.2 further alleged that the executiou of document shows.the ill-intention of petitioners and they obtained cheques and promissory notes from him and misused 'the same. It is further allegecl that the amount taken by hirn was Rs.17,50,0OO f - towards loan 'uvhich was to.be paid within one month from 2,9.og.2a17 for which he is said to have given propertv worth of Rs.9o,oo ,ooo / -; that the said cheques, promissory notes and blank papers obtained from him were allegedly to be kept in custody of petitioner No.3; that respondent No.2 requested the petitioners to receive the amount and cancel the document. But the petitioners are failed to do so and avoided to receive phone calls. Basing on the said facts, the Present is registered. I I i : i I I , I f : I i: t L I lI I i! !t I t I i ! i 1 i : a J

4. L.eai'ned coltnsel for the petitioners submits tirat responCent No.2, eariier filed a complaint vicie crime irlo.t>2S of 2o17 on

30.io.2cl7 ctn the file of the Station House olficer, Raicur-g oi1 the same set of allegations against petitioners atrcl the sa-me is closed as "lar:k of evidence". He subrnits that r.esponclent No.2 also fileci civil suit vide o.S.No.l4ct of 2olr an rtre file cf the learned District .Iudge, at Nalgoncia for canceliation cf a.greement of saie-cum-c.P.A. bearing document No.5836 of 2olr and the same is pencting adjuclication; that petitioner No.l had iiied suit for specific periorrnance vide O.S.No.9 of 2O2Ll orr the fiie oi the learned Senior Civil Judge. at Bhongir in re.sllect of land admeasr-rring sy Nos.351, 353, 343 and 344 acimeasur-ing Ac 3.00 gts against respondent No.2 and the same is also pending adjudication.

5. He further submits that petitioner No.1 herein has also fiied crime No.16 of 2o2o on o9.01.2o2a against respondent No.2 before the Station House officer, Bibinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 42o of r.p.c. a-nd as a counter blast to the said complaint respondent No.2 fited the present complaint basing on false and vexations allegations. Relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in 4 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Othefsl, he (.^- seeks to pass appropriate orders

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 died and seeks to pass appropriate orders-

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that death of respondent No.2 will not absolve the liability of the petitioners; that during the course of investigation, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition and this Court vide order dated 2O.LO.2O2O granted interim stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.3O6 of

2020. By virtue of interim stay granted by this Court, further investigation is stalled. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition. B. Having regard to the submissions of all the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court observed that the earlier, respondent No.2 filed the complaint vide Crime No.628 of 2Ol7 on 30.10.2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurg against the petitioners basing on same set of allegations and respondent-Police have filed the 'final report' by closing the F.I.R. as "lack of evidence". No protest | 1992 Crl.l) 2916 5 t t petition is filed against the said closure. Now, a.fter a lapse oi three (3) years, the present complaint is filed. It is pertinent 'uo note that respondent No.2 also filed civii suit vide O.S.No.140 of 2OL7 on the file of competent civil Court for canceilation of agreement oi sale-cum-G.P.A. bearing document No.5B3 6 of 2Ol7 and the samc) is pending adjudication. Therefore, even if the investigation is zrllowed to be continued, no neu' Iacts -would be revealed. Relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court citecl (supra 11, this Court is of the opinion that the uncontroverte<1 allegations made in the F.l.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission o[ zrny offence and make out a case against the petitioners.

9. Accordingly., the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in so far as petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 are concerned in Crime No.3O6 of 2O2O on the file of the Station House Office;:, Bibinagar Police Station for the offences punishable und.er Sections 406 and 42O of I.P.C. are hereby quashed 6 F Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDI. N OFFICER I To,

1. Additional Judicial First Class Nlagistrate at Bhongir. 2. The Station House Officer, Bibinagar Police Station, 3. One CC to SRI T BALA MOHAN REDDY Advocate 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, nda District. Hyderabad. IOUTI

5. One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies BGS/gh y*- \\ HIGH COURT DATED: 1610712025 3 r=.t CRLP.No.S151 of 2020 J o * ( 0l luu P5 .:-r:/t i i: * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ^rf^ffos