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 grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No.82212024 in Crime No. 190 ot 2024, filed U/s. 447,427 R/with section 34 of IPC on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, including the arrest and personal appearance of the Petitiones/Accused No. 2 herein. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. MOHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2 and of l,lone appeared for the Respondent No.3. The Court made the following ORDER: 'l o, Or .icr-r a'lelr-.'r THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALADEVI EADA

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarih Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceerlings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No,822 of 2024, <>n the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

2. tleard Sri Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, leamed counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the leamecl Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 il 2.

3. l-earned counsel for the petitioner submifted that he is the owner of the land in Sy.No.54/E and that he filed a suit for injunction on 18.t)4.2O24 and obtained an injunction order against the defacto complainant. While the defacto complainant has filed a Writ Petition but could not obtain any orders. Thus, out of grudge, to settle the scores in the civil matter, he filed the present complaint on

15.05:2024 alleging false offences against the petitioner herein. He t furthe\ submitted that according to the complaint, the alleged offence occurred one month prior to lodging of complaint i.e., on 1S.0S.2024. ' I I !l I 2 ETD,J Cd.P,t,0'.toffn _?0,25 Thus, it is an afterthought of the defacto co'mplainant to seftle the matter. Hence, prayed to qtr,ash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor lras sub'mitted that the pendency of the civil suit is no point for consideration in the criminal proceedings. He further submitted that when there is a complaint and if allegations are disclosed with regard to criminality, then the crimina! proceedings are maintainable and it is for the police to investigate and it is for the criminal court to ascertain the truth in the complaint, but it cannot be quashed away just because the civil proceedings are pending before the Court.

5. Perused the record. The petitioner has filed copies of the suit pending before the Trial Court and atso the copy of the Sale Deed and other documents. His contention is that when a civil matter is pending and when there is an injunction in his favour, criminal proceedings cannot be invoked against him. He relied upon a decision reported in the case of Doddapaneni Umamaheswar Rao and others Vs.Navuru Gopal Reddy and anotherr whereh, Para 9 of the said Judgment reads as under:' II ' 2012 SCC Online AP 1 31 3 : I I I I I I 1 I I -i i i : . 3 EID.J anP,tu t@t_2@5 'Tlr,e matter which essentially involves dispute of cMl naturc should not be allowed to benme subiect matter of ciminal prunedings which may be resofted fo as a short cut to execution of a non-existent decree". Complaint filed making albgations of cheating against the appellants whereas the case in f,zct involved civil dispute relating to a contract. ln such event the High C)outt ought to have exercised its pwer under Section 48?. Cr.PC."

6. By observing so, the learned Judge of this High Court has quashe'l the proceedings against the petitioner in the said case. 7: ln Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.s. Reddf, the Hon'bleApex Court has hetid that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties, is no justification to quash the I / criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused person:i. ln the present case, the allegations do point out the ofiences under Section 447, 427 read with 34 IPC againsl: the petitioner and the matter is pending vide C.C.No.822 of 2024, ,tn the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner. 4 2 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712 4 €TD,J Ctt.Pt,,,.1oi,91-2925

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of direcfing the learned Trial Gourt to dispose of C.C.No .822 of 2024 at tfp earliest' However, the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 is dispensed with before {he Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever he is Specmcafiy required during the course of trial-

9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' g SD'.M.NAGAMANI ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR \ To, ,/TRUE COPY/ OFFICER

1. The Metropolitan Magistrate at Chevella Ranga Reddy District' - 2. The Station House O?icer, Police Station Shankarpally, Rangaf{dy District' 3. One CC to Sri. MOHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED, Advocate toPucli- 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H'rgh court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies TTS/PSL o ,r f ':i:. S Ir ? t Jilt ztffi z- * t HIGH COURT DATED: 0910!112025 falrlal=Iil CRLP.No.{089{ ot 2025 CRIMINAL F,ETITION IS DISPOSED OF a