The High Court · 2025

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 stay all the proceedings in connection with the F. L R No 94 OF 2025 on the file of Danthalapally police station at Mahabubabad district in respect of offence under section 318(4), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 7 I I I i I i I 2023 including the appearance of the petitioner in connection with the calendar cases in the interest of justice and equity This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. GRACE SHEEBA RANI, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 I The Court made the following: ORDER I I l THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12345 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petitron is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.94 of 2025 on the file of Danthalapally Police Station, Mahabubabad District, for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS

2. Heard Ms Grace Sheeba Rani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter is purely of civil nature, but the de facto complainant has given a criminal colour to it to settle the civil dispute. She further submitted that the agreement of sale is alleged to have been entered on 06.10.2019, but the present complaint is lodged after a period of six years, which shows that the complaint itself is false and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the possession also was delivered according to the recitals of the EID.J Crl.P. No-l2345 o12025 agreement of sale dated 06 10 2019, but the grievance of the complainant is that the sale deed is not registered and the physical possession of the land was not delivered. He further submitted that the investigation is not yet completed. 5 Perused the record.

6. I'he allegations point out that the agreement of sale was entered in 2019 and that the petitioner has taken money to an extent of Rs.3.00 lakhs and agreed to register the sale deed, but not executed the sale deed till date. The investigation is still in progress. The recitals of the alleged document show that possession is delivered. A writ petition is also filed by the petitioner No.'l wherein the High Court has directed the revenue authorities to carry out the mutation in their favour

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anotherl, wherein it was held that: "The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie drsclose an ovenvhelming element of criminality. ln the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the ' 2o2s tNsc al7 /; : ) I ETD,J Crl-P. No-12315 of 2025 process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. lf such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed."

8. Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahnoor Fatima lmran and others v. M/s. Visveswara lnfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others2, wherein it was held that: "When dispossession by the State is alleged on the strength of possession, mere reliance on interim orders passed in wrat petitions earlier filed cannot establish such actual and physical possession. We have also noticed that the validated agreement of '19.03.1982, based on which conveyance is claimed by the writ petitioners, cannot be sustained on the clear terms an the two agreements. We noticed on a compaflson of the actual agreement on which a suit for specific performance was filed and the latter agreement, which stood validated but not registered even now that the original declarants and the writ petjtioners have been approbating and reprobatang. The power of absolute right over lands is on the State and the person in occupation, is only there, by virtue of the grants, which can be brought to an end by the State which has the power of eminent domain." ': 2o2s rNsc 646 -1 EfD,J Crl.P. No-12345 o12025 and also held that the parties would be entitled to agitate their respective causes in the appropriate civil forum or if statutorily prohibited, avail the remedies made available under the statute

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above cited decisions squarely apply to the present case But, in the present case, it is alleged that when the de facto complainant approached the petitioner for registrartion of land, he threatened him with dire consequences and has fa led to execute a registered sale deed

10. Thus, in the facts and circumstances. since the offence alleged are under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) ot BNS, which are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the matter by directing the police concerneci to invoke the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS '1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to appear before the lnvestigating Officer concerned on or before 17.11.2025 between 1 1.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., and in turQ=the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS and also to follow the 5 ETD,J Ctl.P. No.l2i15 o12025 guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar3 scrupulously and the petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the lnvestigating Officer and to furnish the requisite information and documents as and when required by hrm. It/liscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magiskate at Thorrur. 2. The Station House Officer, Danthalapally police Station, lvlahabubabad. 3. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4 s Two CD Copies Ms. GRACE S HEEBA RANI Advocate IOPUCI tTC/PSL '1zot+1 o scc zzt I I HIGH COURT DATED: 27t1012025 ORDER CRLP.No.12345 of 2025 ..k' c OF N$ F lYo "s \- -' + Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Disposed of. q ,)