The High Court · 2025

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad Through Women Police Station Vikarabad.

2. Smt D.V.Neeraja W/o. Upender aged 41 year Occ House wife Rl/o.H.No.3262 Near Government School Old Village lvlallapur Uppal [Vledchal Ranga Reddy Diskicit. 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 proceedings in CC.No.490 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional Metropolitan magistrate, Cyberabad at malkajgiri Rangareddy District against the petitioners/Accused No.2, 5,6. ..Respondents l.A. NO: 2OF 2023 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 of all and further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2,5 and 6 in CC.No.490 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional Metropolitan Maistrate Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate representing Sri Police Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE TTON'EBLE SFTT JT.ISTICE J.SF'EENTVAS TTAO CRIMrNAL PETITION No.6458 of 2o23 ORDER: This Criminal petition tras been filed r. nder Section 482 of the Code of Crirninal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'cr'P C'') by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2, 5 and 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.49O of 2O2l on the frle of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Merlkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences punishable r.nder Sections 42O, 467, 46a, 47I, 424, 5Cl6, t2o(b) of the rndian penal Code, 1860 (for short .IpCJ and Section 156(3) of the Cocle of Criminal procedure, l9Z3 (for short .CrpC,).

2. Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, Iearned counsel for the petitioners, Sri p.Vrjay Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri police Venkat Reddy, learned cot.nsel for respondent No.2 ald Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistarrt public prosecutor, appearing ibr respondent No.1-State. 2

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. The complainant's uncle, namely D V Yadagiri, purchased land to an extent of Ac 1.00 in Sy No'i81/A of Kundhanpally Village from M. Sathyanarayana, under a General Power of Attorney, uide Document No'5078 of 2012 dated 17 'O4'2O12' Subsequently, on 30.03.2013, the complainant purchased the same land from D.V. Yadagiri, uide Document No'2103/2013' Accused No.l, rvho is the son of Sathyanarayana, was citcd as a rvitness. Since lhen, the complainant has beetl in physical possession of the saicl land, and his name was also mutated in the revenue records, and a passbook was issued in his favour'

3.2 It is lurther averred that in 2015, the said Sathyanarayana's son, Prabhakar, filed O.S. No.1040 of 2015 before the District Judge, Ranga Red<ly District at L.B.Nagar, seeking cancellation of the sale deed and perpetual injunction, by forging the signalure of his father, in collusion with accused Nos'2 to 6, rvith an intention to grab the propcrty. While accused No.S and others were erecting stone pillars with fencing wire on the complainant's plot, the complainant's husband went there upon learning of the same' At that time, accused No.5 demanded Rs.10 lakhs, failing which accused No.1 would again file a case. '1 -/ ' *r(i:: *a .rra.'r..,, ,r{t., -|. -.. .> - --. "t{ -. . / ...7 --

3.3 It is also averred that on ll.O7.2olg, the said suit was dismissed, subsequently an appeal was preferred by accused No.1 and the same is pending. Meanwhile, the complainant applied for Rythu Bandhu and a patta passbook, but accused Nos. 1 to 6 opposed the same and threatened the complainant and her husband. At the same time, accused No.l got the civil case reopened by impleading his mother. He forged signatures and filed a case to resist the complainant,s claim and to grab the property. Further, accused No.1 obtained a passbook for Ac.2.l4 guntas instead of Ac.2.OO guntas, for his itlegal gain and to causc monetary loss to the complainant. Thus, accused Nos.l to 6 are Iiable for the offences mentioned above. 4 Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners:

4.7 Learned counsel subrnitted that the petitioners have not cornrnitted any offence and they were falsely irnplicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the cornplaint, respondent No.2 had purchased the property to an extent of Ac. 1_OO in Sy.No.LaL/ A through registered sa_le deed dated 30.03.2013 frorn her father-in-law namely D.V.yadagiri, who is the registered GPA holder of original owner narnely M.Sattryanarayana. Accused No.l, who is none other 4 .-- \ .'.n rr.i._ . f . -{ j ;,.i-'-t. -"*1 \,, than the son of M. Sathyanarayarra, forged the signatures of his father and liled suit in O.S. No.1O4O of 2O15 seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 3O.O3.2O 13 in colh'rsion with the petitioners. The entire allegations are levelled against accused No. 1 only. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 42O, 467, 468, 477, 474, 106, and 120- B IPC, as well as Section 156(3) CrPC, are not attracted against the petitioners-

4.2 He lurther subrnrtted that M. Sathyanarayana filed suit on 23.O9.2015 and he died on 1O.O4.2O18. Respondent No.2 filed a private cornplaint on 05.08.2019 after a lapse of nearly forlr years frorn the date of institution of thc suit without assigning any reason for the delay. Learned Magistrate without examining the allegations rnade in thc complaint sirnply referred the matter to the police and based on the sarne, Crirne No.386 of 2Ol9 was registered and the Investigating Officer without properly conducting the investigation filed a charge sheet and the learned Magistrate without exarnining tkre sarrre, took cognizance and numbered as C.C. No. 49O of 2021 . The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of 5 process of law

5. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2: E,I Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted ihat accused No.1 in collusion with the petitioners filed suit in the narne of M.Sathyanarayana by forging the signature of his father and there are specilic allegations against the petitioners in the complaint. The witnesses also in their staternents specifically mentioned the role of the petitioners. Tkre grounds which are raised by the petitioners have to be adjudicated during the collrse of triai. Based on the same, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for quashing the proceedings.

6. Subrnissions of learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No. 1: 6 .7 Learned Assistalt public prosecutor has reiterated the submissions rnade by the learned counsel for respondcnt No.2. Analysis: Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective parties and after pe^rsa1 of the material 6 \ \-. 'f".{$li#'-r} ;:i,. t=:tt \ '..' ' \ - available on record, it reveals t}- at respondent No'2 clairning that she had purchased the property to an extent of Ac.1 OO in Sy.No.18i /A situated at Kundhanpally Village, Kcesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district (presently Medchal Malkajgiri District) through registered saie deed' d.ocurnent bearing No.2103 ol 2073, dated 3O'O3'2O13 said to have been executed by her father-in-Iaw narnely D.V.Yadagiri, who is a registered General Power of Attorney holder of Mr'M.Sathyanarayana on 30'O3'2013' The record discloscs that M ' Sathyanarayana 8. filed suit in O. S . No . 1O4O of 20 I 5 before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B'Nagar on 23'O9 2015 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing No.21O3 of 2013, dated 3O'O3 '2013 of respondent No'2 and to declare the above rnentioned registered sa-ie deed is not bind.ing r-rpon hirn and to direct the defendants therein to pay the sale consideration of Rs'29,O4,OOO/- together with interest and also other reliefs' g. Respondent No.2 filed private complaint on O5.Oa.2O 19 after lapse of more than four years frorn the date of institution of the sr-rit alleging that accr,rsed No'l -ffi ' rv- € . 1i.r_...?.r : .,1 '{'.?' 7 forged the signature of his father and filed a suit in O.S.No.1O4O of 2015 in collusion with the petitioners with intention to cause loss to her and also for wrongfui gain. After perr.sal of the complaint and the charge sheet, it reveals that the only allegation levelied against the petitioners is that the petitioners a-lso colluded with accused No.1. Except the above said allegation, there are no other allegations levelled against the petitioners.

10. It is already stated suF)ra, that entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of Sections 42O,467,468,42I,424,506, and 120_8 IpC do not attract against the petitioners. Hence the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.4 90 of 2O2l is clear abuse of process of law

11. For the foregoing reasons, ttre crirnina-l petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.49O of 2O2l on the file of the XVI Additionai Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Matkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. It is made crear that any of the observations rnade in this order are only 8 confined for the purpose of deciding this case' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications ' if any, pending in this pctition stand closed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. The xvll Additional tvletropolitan lvlagistrate cyberabad at tMalkajgiri' Z. fn" Stution House Officei, Keesara Police Station .Rachakonda' 5 f*i CC. to th" Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at a. One CC to Sri T.V Ramana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. O;" CC to Sri Police Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] To, M NVB/kam HIGH COURT DATED;2210912025 L c:i 6 LL l- ORDER CRLP.No.6458 o12023 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \ "t( \ct