The High Court · 2025

Hari Prasad Agarwal, S/o Om Narayan Agarwal, Aged about 34 years, Occ Business R/o H.No.2-2-103, Yellandu, Khammam District Srinivas Agarwal, S/o Om Narayan Agarwal, Aged about 38 years, Occ Business R/o H.No.2-2-103, Yellandu, Khammam District Sunil Kumar Totla, S/o Satyanarayan Totla, Aged about 50 years, Occ Business R/o H.No.2-5-81, Yellandu, Khammam District Satyanarayan Totla, S/o Seetaram Totla, Aged about 71 years, Occ Business R/o H.No.2-5-81, Yellandu, Khammam District Oruganti Satyanarayana, S/o Pullaiah, Aged about 44 years, R/o H-No.3-3- '101, Lalitha Kala Mandir, Yellandu, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENT Nos. 'l to 6 7. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Through Police Station, Sanathnagar ...RESPONDENT No.7 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 Set aside the order dated 27-03-2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition.No.l2 of 2Q22 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge Cum Principal Family Court Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Kukatpally in confirming the order dated 2210912017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2015 in Crime No.158 of 2O14 by the Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally and consequently direct the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Xll Addl. '::J .TF Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajg iri Drr:r'ct, at Kukatpally to take cognizance against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein i r. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 420 of lndian Penal Code. 1860 and agairst Respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein under Section 420, 506 rlw 34 of lndian 'r:nal Code, '1860 in C.C.No.934 of 2017 ir accordance with law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitio the Hrgh Court may be pleased to grant Stay on all further proceedings in C.l) No.934 OF 2017 on the file of Court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -CL r- Xll Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, N ledchal-Malkajg iri District, a Kukatpally, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusinr: the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing thr, arguments of Sri NYSHADHAM CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate for thr Petitioner and Sri. JITHENDER RAO VEERAIMALLA, Additional Public Proser utor, on behalf of the Respondent No.7 and none appeared for Respondent Nos '1 to 6 The Court made the following: ORDER ttasS *." THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8231 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') assailing the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2022 on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Court Judge, IVledchal- Malkajgiri at Kukatpally whereby the order dated 22.09 2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2015 in Crime No.158 of 2014 by the Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally has been confi rmed.

2. I have heard Mr. Nyshadham Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.7-State.

3. The relevant facts as per the petitioner are that, he filed a private complaint under Sections 190(1Xa) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), before the Learned Magistrate alleging that the his grandfather had, on 25'08'1962' r -,,' 2 NTR,] cnp 8231 2025 purchased Plot No. 6 situated in Mohalla No. 2 admeasuring

202.72 square yards, through an assessment deed executed by the Municipalrty of Yellandu by using joint f;amily funds. Subsequently, his paternal uncle executed a releerst-, deed dated

02.04.1969, relinquishing his 1/Sth share in the s;rid plot. The release deed explicitly recorded that the plot, incr fiing a kirana shop located thereon, constituted joint family property. The accused parties, acting in collusion, created a bc\ lus sale deed dated 05.01 '1 !)87, purporting to transfer the prc tr:rty from his grandfather without any consideration. On the s n:ngth of this fraudulent document, two subsequent sale deeds ,//€)re executed, one on '19.03.200'1 and the other on 14.11.2013. f hrough these deeds, two{hird of the property was transferred tc :iccused Nos. 2 and 3, and the remaining one{hird was transfer'el to accused No. 6. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 despite having knovirledge of the joint family nature of the property conspired to crrrnmit criminal acts by fabricating documents and misrepresent rg ownership, proceeded to purchase the plot. Thereby fraudulenl y divested his lawful property rights. Additionally referred to an ncident dated

02.02.2014 that when the complainant was sitting n his Flat, the accused No.2 along with accusedNo.l came rs;ide the flat , NTR,] Cnp 8231 2025 3 started abusing the complainant with filthy and foul language and the acusedNo.l caught hold the collar of the shrit and pushed him, anyhow due to intervention of the Sub-Registrar, Yellandu (LW-2) the respondents fled away by giving a final warning that he will kill the complainant if he informs the same to anybody and also stated that don't try to act over smart as they are not carrying their mobile phone

4. Upon filing of the complaint, the matter was referred to the concerned police station, resulting in the registration of F.l.R. No. 158 of 2014. However, the police filed a final report stating that there was a lack of evidence. ln response, the petitioner filed a protest petition, Crl.M.P. No. 1 of 2015

5. The ttlagistrate considering the materials presented, by an order dated 22.09.2017, found that while the ingredients of Section 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (lPC) were made out, there was no material supporting the invocation of Section 420 or any other IPC provision. Accordingly, the case was registered under Section 506 r/w 34 IPC alone.

6. Aggrieved by the Magistrate's conclusion that no criminal liability under Section 420 IPC arose, the petitioner filed Criminal I 4 NTR"] Cnp-A211 2A25 Revision Petition No. 12 of 2022. Upon review lhe revisional Court affirmed the findings of the Magistrate, ther:by dismissing the petitioner's challenge. Thus the present petitior

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contendr that both the Learned Magistrate and the revisional Court fait:d to properly appreciate that the allegations made in the compl, irrt prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of :heating under the lndian Penal Code. lt is submitted that the impugned transactions were executed in collusion, 'vithout any consideration, and with the intent to affect the "6vsrs,:l/ petitioner's proprietary interest in the joint family property. lt is further argued that the Courts below erred in con, lLrding that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to prosecute th,: accused and that the complaint did not disclose any offence of ;heating. Such a finding, according to counsel, is prematur, r and legally unsustainable at the threshold stage of the pr,)()eedings. He further pleads that the question of whether the rr;ts constitute cheating can only be properly determined upon firll appreciation of the evidence adduced during trial. The summ;r-y dismissal of the complaint at the initial stage, without affording an opportunity .t\ 5 for such evaluation, is therefore unjustified. Moreover, it is asserted that the sale deeds and related documents, on their face, reveal that the vendees (accused persons) acted with full knowledge of the property's status as joint family property. Their conduct, in proceeding with the transaction despite this knowledge and with intent to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner, clearly reflects the fraudulent intent required to establish the offence of cheating. Therefore prayed for the intervention to set aside the orders passed by the courts below and for a direction to take cognizance on all the counts set out in the complaint.

8. I have perused the materials on record and considered submissions of the learned counsel. lt is not in dispute that the property in question was

9. purchased by the petitioner's grandfather in '1 962, that the petitioner's paternal uncle executed a release deed relinquishing his 1/Sth share in 1969, and that sale deeds were executed in the years 1987 and 2001, wherein respondent No. 4 transferred a 2/3rd share of the pr:operty to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. lt is also undisputed that the petitioner's grandparents passed away in 1992 and 1997, respectively. l 6 rw&) Cnp 82lr 2025

10. ln this timeline, the petitioner's allegations ,rf deception, fraudulent intent, and malice surrounding the e>r-.,:ution of the said sale deeds appear to be speculative and u rr: ubstantiated Notably, the petitioner/de facto complainant ht: rr;elf was not aware of these transactions or the actual events r1 the relevant time. Furthermore, until the filing of the private corr rlaint, no other member of the joint family had raised any objec on or initiated legal proceedings concerning the said property. -fhe petitioner also did not avail any civil remedies prior to lodginc, the criminal complaint, which further weakens the claim of a prima facie criminal offence

11. Nonetheless, taking into consideration t',E petitioner's specific asserlion regarding an incident dated 0j1.C2.20'14, the Learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance of thr, natter under Section 506 of the lndian Penal Code. The revisio,ral Court, after a thorough reevaluation of the materials on recorrl appropriately analyzed the alleged offences in light of the appicable penal provisions and correctly observed that the petitic rer failed to establish the presence of dishonest or frauduler, intent at the ) I 7 NTR,] Cnp 4231 2025 inception of the impugned sale transactions, particularly with respect to the passing of consideration and the conduct of the parties involved. 12- This Court concurs with the well reasoned conclusions reached by both the Learned lMagistrate and the revisional Court. No substantial or legally tenable grounds have been demonstrated to warrant interference with the cognizance order passed by the Learned Magistrate, which has been duly affirmed by the revisional Court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed t SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY IS NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// c ION OFFICER To, l.ThelAddl.JuniorCivilJudgeCumXll-Addl.JudicialMagistrateofFirst Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at KuKatpally'

2. rheXXlV Metropolitan Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur: Cyberabad.

3.TheXlAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,KukatpallyatMiyapur: Cyberabad.

4.TheStationHouseofficer,sanathnagarP.S.,BalanagarDivision, Cyberabad.

5. One CC to SRl. NYSHADHAM CHANDRA SEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 6.TwoCCstoPUBL|CPRoSECUToR,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, Sr,ll,u"lo MKN/PSL , -l Copies I i I l I I I I I ! i i I I HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ORDER CRLP.No.8231 of 2025 15 llilI iqf I ,j '.:. t\,. ^, - ,-'-' '.:-,' CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED @) (, Ito