The High Court · 2025

RESPONDENT NO.1 2. Smt. Gouri Rukmini, Wo Gouri Narsimlu R/o H.No. 2-2-1 1 Near Thatha Gudi, Saipur, Tandur Town and Mandal, Vikarabad - 501141. ...RESPONDENT NO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1, namely, Smt. Hema Sali, in Calendar Case bearing C.C. No. 318 ot 2023 pending before the Junior Civil-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District arising out FIR No. 151 of 2019 dated 10.10.2019 and Chargesheet dated June. 2023 filed by Yalal Police Station, Vikarabad for the offences punishable Uls 420,406 r/w section 34 of lndian Penal Code; Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1, namely, Smt. Hema Sali, in C.C. No. 318 of 2023 pending before the Junior pivil-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District arising out FIR No. 151 of 2019 dated 10. 10.2019 and Chargesheet dated June, 2023fied by Yalal Police Station, Vikarabail; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHAMMED AAMERUDDIN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramall, Additional. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2; The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l0205 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.318 ot ZO23 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District, registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code (for short "lPC").

2. Heard the submissions of Mr.Mohammed Aameruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that it is alleged by the de facto complainant that the accused have entered into an unregistered agreement of sale with her and have also entered into another agreement of sale with regard to the said land and that the accused have executed a registered sale deed in favour of a third party and thus, have committed an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. He further argued that it is a matter which is civil in \ t ) nature and that even in case if the allegations are true, they can as well take recourse to civil proceedings but with the ulterior motive this complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. They do not {ispute the ownership of the petitioner herein but however, she has filed this complaint. That the Apex Court has many a times has stated that the allegations under Sections 42O and 406 of IPC do not go together but still the present FIR is registered against the petitioner under both the sections, hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the allegations do point out that the petitioner has received the amount from the de facto complainant and entered into second agreement of sale and that pendency of the civil suit does not justify the quashing of criminal proceedings and has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddyl .

5. Perused the record.

6.* . ..The C.C.No.318 ol 2023 is pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, | 2025 LNeLaw (SC) 7 t2 3 Vikarabad District, for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioner.

7. The learned petitioner counse! has relied upon a decision of the Apex court in Radheyshyam v. sfafe of Rajasthan2, wherein it was held that mere non-performance of an agreement to sell by itself does not amount to cheating and breach of trust and that the de facto complainant has adequate remedy of filing a civil suit for relief of specific performance and the FIR appears to be an arm- twisting mechanism to pressurize the appellants to execute the sale deed or to extract money and that every civil wrong cannot be converted into criminal wrong.

8. The learned counsel has further relied upon a decision of the Apex court in sarabjit Kaur v. sfafe of punjab3, wherein it was held that the criminal Courts are not meant to be used for setfling scores or pressurise parties to setfle civil disputes.

9. The learned counsel has also relied upon a decision of the Apex court in s.N.vg'ayalkshmi v. sfafe of Karnatakaa, wherein it was observed that purely from a legal lens, it is now setfled that the l { 4)24 SCC Online SC 231 I Qozs) 5 scc 360 2025 SCC Online SC t575 4 same person cannot be simultaneously charged for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC with regard to one particular transaction, as per the decision rendered in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v, Sfafe of lJttar Pradeshs.

10. However, the decision in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy (surpa 1) relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor applies to the case on hand, therefore, it is not proper to quash the proceedings in the pending C.C. lt is also noticed that the C.C. pertains to the year 2023 and is pending for trial, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

11. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District, to dispose of C.C.No.31B of 2023 at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. However, the attendance of the petitioner is dispensed with before the trial Court, unless his presence is specifically required by the trial Court during s zozqscc online sc2248 5 the course of trial, provided that he shall be represented by his - counsel on every date of hearing. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed \ SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISRAR AS //TRUE COPY/ l i N OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District

2. The Station House Officer, Yalal P.S., Vikarabad 3. One CC to SRl. MOHAMMED AAMERUDDIN Advocate LOPU 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies VSM/GR v HIGH COURT DATED:221AU2025 -fi-lr- S14 (" :) i*) I r) t 0 EEB 2CI25 \ .: *- c ORDER CRLP.No.10205 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION q a t\