The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 o{ Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to Crime No.23B of 2020 dated 1110912020, on the file of police station Sadashivapet, Sangareddy District, and quash the proceedings therein against the Petrtioners/Accused No.1 and 2. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in proceedings in Crime No.238 of 2020 dated 1110912020, on the file of police station Sadashivapet, Sangareddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition and upon heanng the arguments of Sri KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri K.VENUMADHAV, for the Respondent No.1 and Sri lvl.Vivekananda Reddy, the Asststant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVTI.S IlA0 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6354 of 2Ctl0 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking 1,r quash the proceedings in Crime No.23B of 2O2O on tht: file of the Sadasivpet Policc Station, Sangareddl' District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal tlode, 1860 ('lPC'for brevitl') arld Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for brevity) u'herein the petitione-rsi were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 an,l 2

2. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, Iearnetl counsel for the petitioners, Sri Krishna Kalyarl, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for respondent Itlo.1 and Sri M.Vivekanancl Re,Cdy, learned Assistant Pub ic Prosecutor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitroners submits that respondent No.1 liled private cc.rmplaint before t lre Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Special Mobrle Court, at Sangareddy against the petitioners alleging that ihe petitioner 2

11. No.1 failed to pay the due amount pursuant to the agreement dated 03.12.2019. Learned Magistrate withour assigning any' reasons referred the case to thc Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) ol Cr.P.C and basing on the same, the police registered crime. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on O9.O9.202O is contrary' to the principli: laid down b1, the Hon'ble Apex Court tn Priganka Sriaastaua & Anr us State Of U.P,& Ors t.

3. 1 . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted ' that allegations made in tl're complaint are purely civil in nature . For recovcry of the due amount respondent No.1 has filed the complaint instead of approaching competent civil Court lor recovery of the amount and the same is not permittcd under lalr,. He furthcr submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the FIR, the ingredients under Sections 420, 504, 506 of the IPC do not attract. He furthcr submittcd that entire allegations are leveled against petitioner No. I and after lodging of complaint petitioner No. 1 died and there are no allegations I 2o1s (6) scc 287 , ,,, ..1 against the petitioner No.2. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner No.2 is cl,,',:r abuse of process of law. 3 .2 He further submitted that petitioner ltlo. 1 issued cheques for tlLe due amounts. Basing on the said cheques respondent Nc.2 initiated proceedings against pr:titioner No. 1 under Sectiort 138 of Negotiable Instrument:; Act belore competent Magistrate Court ald the sa-rd cases were dismissed as abated on the ground of death of the petitioner No.1. Hence. the continuation of the proccerlings against petitioner No.ll is clear abuse of process of larv .rnd the same is liable to be rluashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent I\Jo. 1 submits that there are specific allegations against the pet-Ltioner Nos.1 and 2 that u,ith dishonest intention they jointly sold the property and executed the registered sale deed in favour of accused Nos.3 to 5. However, as per the agreement, they failed to pay the a-rnount in favour of respondr:nt No.1 and whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation 4 and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of the proceedings

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the verv same submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.1

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.1 fi1ed private complaint invoking the provisions of Section 190 Read with Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Additional Judicial Irirst Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, at Sanga Reddy on 20.O8.2O20. in the said complaint respondent No. 1 specificaily alleged that petitioner No. 1 received an amount of Rs.2,98,00,0OO/ -(Rupees Two Crore Ninety Eight Lakhs) at the time of purchasing of S.V.Springs Apartment bearing No.6-4/C1 & C2 and the petitioner No.1 has entered into an agreement dated 03.12.2019 agreeing to repay the same in the month of Jarruary and he had issued post dated cheques. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have jointly alienated the house bearing No.6-4/C 1 & C2 in favour of 5 accused Nos.3 to 5 and in spite of the same, the accused Nos.l and 2l \ave faiied to pay the amount jn favour of respondent No.1. 7 . From perusal of the docket order dated 0().09 .2()2O, it reveals that lt:arned Magistrate referred the nratter !o the police for inve stigation under Section 156(3) o1' Cr.P.C. and passed cryptic order without appiying his mind. [t is relevalt to extract the docket order dated 09.O9.2O2O ri,hich reads as under: "Heard refer the case to P.S. Sadzrsivapet for investigation IJls 156 (3) olCr.P.C." B. The Horr'ble Apex Court in Priganka Sriuastaua supra held that the Magistrate must apply his mind and shall make brief note of t-he case and his satisfaction that ir is a fit case to be investigated by the police while referrins the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the case on hand, learned Magistrate passed cryptic r.rrder without recording his satisfaction. Hence, the impugned order dated O9.O9.2O2O, passed by the learned Magistratc: referring the 6 L^ matter to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., IS contrarv to law.

9. For the foregoing reasons as r.vel1 as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, rvithout going into the other grounds, the docket order dated 09.O9.2O2O, passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. However, this order will not preclude the learned Magistrate to pass orders afresh in accordance with law

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. SD/. . BHAVANI SWAMY SI TANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY' S CTION OFFICER J fi""e officer, potrce station' Sadashivapet' Sansareddv The Judicial l\4agistrate of First Class' (Special tulobile)' Sangareddy il;;;;i;; District Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR' High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) o"" ccil-sar KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Advocate [oPUC] 5;; ;a io sii. r vTNuMADHAV Advocate [oPUC . Two CD CoPies I I I I I To,

1. 2. 3 4 5 6 IPK SA \\.. HIGH COURT DATED: 1511012025 ::{fiffirF,} ( !/^" l!: I \\ 19-\.r 0 4 l{[,J 2Ll6 I' : ,-.,-, -.i. . j,' 4,./. ORDER CRLP.No.6354 ot 2020 CRlMlNAt. iPETITION lS DISPOSEID OF q ""6"YY-<-a .(.tto'-