Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praylng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Call for the records relating to Crime No. 1542 of 2025, dated 05.08.2025, on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cybderabad, and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accu sed registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 340(2), 351(2), BNS Act, as the same have been initiated on the basis of a false and frivolous complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, without any valid grounds or genuine grievance. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS 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 investigation, proceedings related to the Crime No. 1542 o'f 2025, dated 05.08.2025 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of STi.VUSSR Anjaneyulu for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER ,'; lfl" THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA I] EADA =VI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10642 ot 202a ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-ac ;used seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1542 of 202i; on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the c ffences under Sections 318(4) 338, 340(2) of BNS

2. Heard Mr. Syed Waheed Ali, learned c: rnsel for the petitioner and Mr Jithender Rao Veeramalla, lear^:d Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 -State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has subr itted that the petitioner never cheated lhe de facto complainant and I as not forged any document as alleged by her. He further submitlec hat there is a civil dispute pending between both the parties and ilr; t the present case is falsely filed just to settle the scores on civi ;ide and that initially, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which was r, rnored by the police, but they have acted upon the complaint lodr; :d by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the I etitioner has approached the High Court on the earlier occasic Nob3651 of 2025, wherein the High Court has obse \ r vlde W.P. 'ved that the 2 EfO.J Crt.P. No.10612 ol 2025 dispute is of civil nature and that the respondent No.3 therein was directed to serve a copy of the FIR to the petitioner to enable her to take appropriate steps and also directed the respondent No.3 not to make any attempt to settle the issues between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 therein, which are civil in nature. lnspite of the said orders, the present case is registered against the petitioner which is not just and proper. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is a vendee in an agreernent of sale which is alleged to be a forged document and that the vendor therein has never executed such document. He further submitted that the de facto complainant is a resident of USA and owns certain plots as her father purchased the same and that when she returned to lndia, she learnt that the petitioner herein is trying to encroach her plots and has also filed complaint against her in Narsingi police statlon with fake and forged documents and on learning the same, the de facto complainant has lodged this complaint. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record. J efo,J C.l.P. No.10642 of 202,

6. The contents of lhe complaint point out spe I lic allegations against the petitioner that she is trying to encroach th: open plot of the de facto complainant with fabricated m ents The investigation is still in progress. The truth is yet to be I rraveled

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner conten led that when there are civil remedies available, criminal proceecii. ;s cannot be launched and relied upon the decision in Shiela iebastian v. R.Jawaharajl, wherein it was held that Section 464 IPC makes it clear only the one who makes a false document car re held liable under the aforesaid provision. But, in the said case, tl could not succeed to prove the offence of forgenr prosecution = by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. By holding the same, tr e High Court has acquitted the accused by setting aside the concurT rnt f indings of conviction by the courts below. The said orders of i cquittal were upheld by the Supreme Court. But, the present case is still in the stage of investigation and the truth or otherwise in thr: allegatrons is yet to be culled out. Hence, the above said case !i w cannot be applied to the case on hand. Therefore, it is not a fit r ase to quash the proceedings at this stage and the same is liable to I e dismissed. 1 AIR 2018 Supreme Coud 2434 4 ETD,J C ,P, No.10612 of 2025 B. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTAEGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Xlll Judicial First Class Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. 2. The Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri. VUSSR ANJANEYULU, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies PM/PSL l, l1li E -t HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 ORDER CRLP.No.10642 of 2025 \-: \\' [J4 Lri 20fr I' ,.tTr Ht:\l DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. I ))