The High Court · 2025

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 particularly one in the nature of writ of fvlandamus, declaring crime No.13012025 on the file of the Station House officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, and an abuse of the process of criminal law, and consequently 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 Hon'ble Court ::-*=*< lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the crr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nay be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in crime No. 130 ot 2025 regi:; :rec at Aizalg-ttrij Police Station, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioner is r.;t ncerned, pending disposal of the present writ petition Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARUKONDA ARAVIND RA() Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVr\ {AGlRl, AGP FOR HOMI: Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER *ry THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No 19339 0F 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to pass an appropriate direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in Crime No.130 of 2025 on the file of Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad AS egal, arbitrary and consequently quash the matter

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

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that, it is alleged that the petitioner has entered into a registered Development Agreement with the land owners for a real estate project, but due to his financial difficulties, he could not complete the same, but has entered into Memorandum of Understanding with the de-facto complainant and that the de-facto complainant has completed the prolect and as per the fi/emorandum of Understanding he has sold away and registered the flats through the petitioner No.2 herein, exaqrpt for the two mortgaged flats and two shops, which remained in I I I I I ! I i I i i 2 his possession and that they were locked until the I ir.. \rr P t9li.).r)ri xorlgages are cleared. At the time of entering into MOU, two flats lnd two shoPs were already mortgaged by the petitioner for his p': sonal financial needs and as per the MOU, he was obligatec to clear the mortgages within three months, but he failed to do o. lt is alleged that the petitioner did not have any right to sell ther r, but however, he has sold away the said shops and also broke op en the locks of the said shops and forcibly took possession without r formrng the de- facto complainant. He further submitted that the 6 etitioner is the owner of the properties and he can alienate the prtl )ert)/ to anyone and that the alleged lVlemorandum of Understartr ing is errtered around '1 0 years ago and filing a complaint bal; rd on the said lVlemorandum of Understanding through the prest nt case is not proper and that it is lodged based on personal dis: ;tes He further submitted that the petitioners herein are partners rf a oartnership firm and that both of them are arrayed in the said r; rpacity and also the company has to be made a party to the proc'-' complaint is filed in the name of individuals t :dings, but the their personal capacities.. Therefore, the complaint is not rnai I ainable against these petitioners, hence, prayed to quash the prc< eedings against the petitioners. r':IfQ' {!-'iF''r-4/ ! '!: \' /

4. The learned Assistant Government pleader I]TD I wP L9ll9 2025 for Home has 3 submitted that the alleged lr/emorandum of Understanding is signed by the petitioners herein in their personal capacity and they are not shown to have srgned in their capacity as the Managing Directors or Partners of the said company. Hence, the complaint lodged against them in the personal capacity has no infirmity. Therefore, the petitioners are responsible for the alleged sale of property and that investigation is still in progress and that the investigating agency may discover few more facts during the course of investigation. He also submitted that 35(3) notice under BNSS has been already tssued to the petitioner No 2 who is accused No 1. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5 The petitioner counsel has replied that the petitioner No.1 also received notice under 35(3) BNSS and has submitted his response to the said notice.

6. Perused the record

7. The petitioners are facing allegations that petitioner No.2 has sold away the shops without the consent of the de-facto complainant and also that he along with petitioner No.1 have broke open the lock and have forcibly taken possession of the said shop. The record points out that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between I I .l L ll) I \\ l, t9-lt9 llltj Ravija Nirman Properties Limited and Sarkar Proper ies H owever, the lt/lemorandum of Understanding is signed by G S hyam ie.. the petitioner No.2 herein and there is no speclficati I r under the signature as to hrs designation in the company, il r nly bears the simple signature. Thus, the contention of the learni:1 Government Pleader is that he is not portrayed as to have r: lresented the company in the lVlOU. Considering the submissior; of both the counsel, it is to be seen that the entire complaint aror;r ,from the said IVIOU dated 27.01 .2014. The evidentiary value of the ;aid document and the compliance of the terms under the MOU ol v olations if any fall for adjudication during the course of trial. Sirrr t notice under Section 35(3) is issued to both the petitioners it s held that the petitioners shall submit the relevant material to ttr: investigating agency and that the investigating agency shall consi: :r the material and complete the investigation strictly in accordance I ith law. B. With the above said observalions, the Writ Pet t on is disposed \ \ of. To Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sh; I stand closed. SdIS.I/ ALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR i I _i //TRUE COPY// \ : SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, T.S Hyde', bad Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, H ydera I rd One CC to SRl. KARUKONDA ARAV|ND, Advocate iO: JCI Two CCs to GP FOR HOME Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies ,High Court for the State (r Te angana at HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 ORDER WP.No.19339 of 2025 I /, \* )-i=-:1=-:':: ,;(;t It;' (- L' B 1 t,; rnr DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+. 1$r'i