G. Shyam Prasad Reddy v. Secretariat at Hyderabad

402, Sri devi castle, Avanthi Nagar, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad_ ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more parttcularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring FIR No. 193 of 2025 on the file of the Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad and pending on the file of the ll Additional Chief lMetropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of the process of criminal law, and consequenfly quash the same, and further to declare the actions of Respondents no.2 in failing to consider the material facts submitted by the complainant and continuously harassing and threatening the petitioner with arrest warrant without following due process of law and the Hon'ble Court lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in FIR No. 193 of 2025 registere I at Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad pending on the file of the ll Addition I Chief [Vetropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Hydeabad in so far as the petitioner r concerned pending disposal of the present writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRL KARUKONDA ARAVIND Rr\ ) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI SRIDHAR BHU\/ \NAGlRl, AGP FOR HOll{ : Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER l I i l ) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.19104 OF 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to pass an appropriate direction one in the nature of Writ of l/andamus in FlR. No.193 of 2025 on the file of Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the matter.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Karukonda Aravind Rao, learned counsei for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that respondent No.2 herein has not paid the sale consideration for one year as promised and a notice was also issued to him, but he has not responded. The complainant himself says that the transaction took place in the year 20"15, that means afterl0 years, he has filed the present complaint which is not tenable in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner has failed to make the company as a party and that he cannot be arrayed as an accused in his individual 2 capacity, hence, the complaint itself is not maintainal: e prayed to quash the same F,TD,J wP i 910.+ 2025 Therefore,

4. The learned Assistant Government pleader f :. Home has submitted that the petitioner having received total consi leration from the respondent No.2 is alleged to have transferred the aid two flats in favour of third parties and that the investigation is st I in progress. He further submitted that in case if investigation rer, r als that the petitioner herein is representing .the company, then st,: ts would be taken to implicate the company also, but that cannot b,: a ground to quash the proceedings.

5. Perused the record

6. It is aileged that the petitioner herein has agre€,( to seil the property in favour of the de_facto complainant and h rs received around Rs.71 lakhs in cash, but that he has sold away ffrr said flat to third parties. The truth or otherwise in the allegatior s shall be brought out during the course of trial. The record furthel Jiscloses a copy of the sale deed alleged to have been execLr ed by the petitioner herein in favour of the de_facto complain rt. lt also discloses a letter dated 04.01 .2021 addressed by the petitioner herein to the District Registrar, Hyderabad intimating l-ri n that the = -;ffi.,-+oy - ,/ .-. -L \ To, 3 ETD,J wP t9104 2025 vendee has not paid the total sale consideration and hence, he has not handed over the possession of the said flat and after several notices, the payment is not made for a period of five years and thus has requested the District Registrar to issue notices to the said vendees and insist them to execute the Cancellation Deed, and after obtaining execution of parties, he requested the Registrar to impound the said cancellation of sale deed under Section 33 of the Stamp Act. The sale deed was executed on 22.10.2015, while this letter was addressed in 2021, requesting the District Registrar to cancel the said sale deed. Therefore, the allegations do point out the offence under Section 420 and 406 of the lndian Penal Code. The veracity of the witnesses and the evidentiary value of the document shall be tested during the course of trial. Since; the allegations prima-facie point out, the offences against the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the same is liable to be drsmissed.

7. ln the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/-S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII S TION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. KARUKONDAARAVIND, Advocate toqqql 2. iil Ccs to cp FoR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] (A- ,_ _,_-*,=.__**x=ll9l HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 /.r,} ,. .1 i: ir:l t ' ,' ?t. \1 i \ [:t t 025 { i.,:/ + ,//' l]..:,. .-.:' . ORDER WP.No.19104 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WIT}.iOUT COSTS ( I l 1lt LI A Lt