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 quash the FIR No. 10412024 on the file of PS Chandur, Nalgonda District registered against the Petitioners/ Accused No, 1 and 2. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitibn,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of lnvestigation in FIR No. 10412024 on the file of PS Chandur, Nalgonda District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E. Sreenivasa Rao .Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. '1 and None appeared for the respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\ I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10213 OF 2O1t: ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petition,r s - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.'104 of 2(24 on the file of P.S. Chandur, Nalgonda District, registered for the rffence under Section 318(4) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2(23 (for short 'BNS, 2023")

2. Heard the submissions of Sri E.Sreenivas llao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nc . I - State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel submits that the e legations do not fall under Section 318(4) of BNS and that there is n I question of cheating lhe de facto complainant and that the compl: nt is filed to convert the nature of civil proceedings to that of crimirr rl cases just to harass the petitioners and that accused No.2 has f ed civil suit against the de facto complainant and after four nonths this complaint has been lodged by the de facfo compleri lant just to harass the petitioner herein. There are civil dispu es pending between both of them and that the said case is filed e s a counter 2 \J*1 blast to the suit that was filed by the petitioner herein, he therefore, - prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that though a civil suit is pending, the de facto complainant cannot be precluded from invoking the criminal proceedings and that the investigation is still in progress and the petitioners can as well cooperate with the police with the material if any in their possession.

5. Perused the record

6. The allegations in the complaint point out the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS. The record further discloses that O.S.No.175 ol 2024 was filed for perpetual injunction by the petitioner No.2 herein against the de facfo complainant, which is pending for trial.

7. The learned petitioners counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Supreet Singh v. Stafe of Telanganal , wherein the main grievance of the petitioners was that when a civil suit was pending where the genuineness of the documents can be decided, resorting to criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of the Court. But, in view of the conflicting judgments of the Coordinate Benches, ' 20l9I HIT (crt.) 148 I J it was felt that it is difficult to follow either of the ll lgments and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances libe ty was given to the de facfo complainant to file a complaint afresh r n disposal of the civil suit, since there is no limitation for the allr) led offences' With the said observation, this Court has allowed the 11r ash petitton' Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of t e Apex Court 8. in Mohd.Khalid Khan v' State of lJttar Pradesh2' uherein there was a suit and a first appeal pending on the subject I latter and the issue with regard to the ownership of the land in que:; ion was yet to be finalized, in the said circumstances' the Apex Corr has quashed the criminal proceedings holding that there was no c ase made out against the aPPellants' ln the present case, the investigation is still in >rogress The 9. truth or otherwise of the allegations can be made I lt' if at all the petitioners have any grievance they can as well sul> nit all the said documents and cooperate with the investigation'

10. ln Kathyayini v. Sidharth P'S' Reddy'' the I pex Court has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the samt: subject matter' involving the same parties is no justification to qu3 ;h the criminal t (:o t:) ts scc 6lg t 1025 l.iveLaw (sc) 712 f 4 proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.

11. ln the light of the said decision and in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the investigation is at its threshold, this Court does not want to interfere with the same.

12. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to conclude the investigation at the earliest, stricfly in accordance with law. Further, the petitioner shall co-operate with the police as and when required for the purpose of investigation. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SO/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT B!:GISTRAR .,..'/v\-" SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class ( Special Mobile Court)' at Nalgonda 2. The Station House Officer, Chandur Police Station, Nalgonda District. 3. One CC to Sri E. Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies YIR h o 1 HIGH COURT OATED:,2210812O25 ---/ ORDER CRLP.No.10213 of 2025 % () U. rEL4 s -\--: * I I I rl'a f:t .'.rn;'. - ,. -...': DISPOSING OF THE CRL. PETITION. L