Criminal Petition No. 7490 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.424 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, (for short 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC').

02. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additionat Public Prosecutor for the State-resporident No.1 as well as Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03(a). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 are mother and son, respectively. The father of the accused No.1 was the owner and possessor of 2 (1 agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.01 guntas in Survey No.B0, situated at Khairatapur Village, choutuppal l\Iandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, having acquired the same through his ancestors. Subsequently, he alienated the entire extent of land in favour of M/s.t\Ieghanath stone crushers through a registered sale deed bearing document No.104 of 'lgg1 dated 25.01.1991. However, the purchasers did not get their names mutated in the revenue records. 03(b). lt is alleged that though the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 were well aware of the said arienation made long back by the father of the accused No.1 in favour of third parties, with a mala fide intention and by taking advantage of the non-mutation in the revenue records, the accused No.1 fabricated and got executed a false register:ed Gjft settlement Deed bearing document No.3623 of 2011, dated

29.07.2011, in her favour. Subsequenily, in June 2017, the accused No.1 approached the respondent No.2, as the absolute owner and possessor of agricutturar land admeasuring Ac.2.O1 guntas in Survey No.g0/A of Khairatapur Village, choutuppal lvrandar, yadadri-Bhongir 7 t 3 District, claiming to have acquired the same through the aforesaid Gift Deed executed by-her father Sri Velma Janga Reddy. She offered to sell the said land to the respondent No.2 for valuable consideration and furnished a copy of the said Gift Deed 03(c). When the respondent No.2 requested her to show the property, accused No.1 took him to the said survey number and showed certain land, representing it as her own land. Believing her words, the respondent No.2 paid the entire sale consideration, whereupon the accused No.1 executed a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.3252 of 2017, dated 16.06.2017, in his favour. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 was in peacefut possession and dnjoyment of the said land. 03(d). lt is further alleged that in June 2022, one Velma Pedda Ram Reddy and others came to the property purchased by the respondent No.2 and attempted to interfere with his possession. When the respondent No.2 questioned their illegal interference, they informed him that the \ 4 petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2had no right, title, or interest :l in the said property, as the same had already been sold long back in the year 1991 by the father of the accused No.1 . On which, the respondent No.2 obtained a certified copy of Sale Deed bearing document No.1O4 of 1991 and came to know that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 had cheated him. When he confronted them regarding the same, they allegedly threatened him with dire consequences and warned him that if he demanded return of the sale consideration, they would see his end with the help of anti-social elements

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they are nothing to do with the alleged offences. All the allegations levelled in the charge sheet are false and baseless. There is sappression of material facts in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 that he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.164 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal against the petitioner-accused No.1 and others wherein the subject property was shown as suit schedule 'B' property, which is pending for adjudication. The present complaint was lodged after six years after execution of the sale deed. The Police without any proper investigation filed the charge sheet. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 to cheat the respondent No.2. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of lPC. The allegations are of purely civil in nature but the respondent No.2 is trying to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and2

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full- fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 6

06. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners-accused Nos.'l and 2 are mother and son. lt is also seen that the gift deed in question was a registered document bearing No.3623 of 2011, executed in favour of petitioner-accused No.1 by her fafter. Further, it is apparent from the record that the respondent No'2 has instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.164 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, against the petitioner-accused No.1 and four others, wherein the subject property is shown as the suit schedule 'B' property, and the said suit is pending adjudication.

07. A careful perusal of the record dischses that the allegations made are civil in nature.' The sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 was executed on 16.06'2017, and ever since, the respondent No.2 has been in peaceful possession of the subject property. The FIR in the present case was lodged only in the year 2023, thereby indicating an admitted delay of six years in lodging the complaint. Upon a meticulous examination of the material on record, it is evident 7 that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature. Furthermore, it is to be noted that a civil suit had already been instituted prior to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings, which is pending adjudication before the competent civil court, where the respective rights of the parties can be effectively determined. There is no material on record to indicate any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 so as to constitute the offence of cheating as alleged. lnsofar as the allegation under Section 506 IPC is concerned, there are no specific averments as to the manner in which the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have caused criminal intimidation to respondent No.2. r

08. ln Sfate of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lat and othersl the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia held that: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminat Procedure, the foilowing ' 1992 scc (suPp) I 335 .l I categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of iustice, though it may nof be possrb te to lay down any precise, clealy defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myiad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (f where the attegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other mateials, if any, accompanying the F.t.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, iustifying an investigation by police officers under Secfion 156(1) of the Code except.under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (!l where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FtR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out ? case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a potice officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (!) where the altegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conctusion that there is sufficient ground for p roceed i ng ag ai n st the-qcc u se d : - (!) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concemed Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggieved party; Q) where a ciminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

09. ln the present case on hand, as observed supra, the alleged transaction took place in the year 2017, whereas the complaint came to be registered only in the year 2023. lt is also on record that the respondent No.2 had already approached the competent civil court prior to the filing of the present criminal case, wherein the petitioner-accused No.1 along with others, has been arrayed as onb of the defendants. ln support of the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, as many as seven witnesses were examined. Among them, two witnesses are the respondent No.2 and his brother, who are admittedly interested witnesses; one witness is a neighbour, who appears to be a hearsay witness, two are panch witnesses; -)L I I i I ! t, 10 and one is the lnvestigating Officer. lt is pertinent to note \J that one Mr. Velma Pedda Ram Reddy was examined as a circumstantial witness, who deposed that the subject property had already been sold to one Megnath Constructions in the year 1991, which as per the charge sheet, is a third-party transaction. However, his statement is silent regarding his own interest in the subject property and the reasons for his alleged interference with the possession of the respondent No.2, which constitutes a material discrepancy. Significantly, no independent witness has been examined by the lnvestigating Officer. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not, prima facie, constitute any of the alleged offences against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and .t 2, and the material collected during the course of investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, does not disctose the commission of any offence so as to make out a case against them. Hence, the present case falls within the ambit of point Nos.1 and 3 of Ch.Bhaian Lal's case cited supra. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal 11 proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.424 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed S H rue-o ffiouL\ rHaN SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// EECflON OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt. Justice Juwadi ' iFor Her LordshiP kind Perusal) To, 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chouttuppal' 2. The Station House Officer, Bhongir Police Station, Yadadri District' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, state of Telangana, High court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. 11 LR CoPies 5.TheUnderSecretary,UnionoflndiaMinistryofLaw,JusticeandCompany Affairs, New Delhi

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad' 7. One CC to Sri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies w DUPSL HIGH COURT DATED:31/10/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7490 o12024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,b .o{'Ji I #t-l lHE S1-4 ir6: f" 31 0Ec il6 t ) !) o *- L,r s -'it'cH ?C