The High Court · 2025

5. Smt. Gundappagari Dhanalaxmi,, W/o Gundappagari Raju, aged 50 years, OCC. House wife, R/o. H. No.5-19i1, Kothapally, Yousufpet, Medak 502313. 6. Smt. Seela Santoshini,, W/o Seela Lingamurthi, aged 45 years, OCC. House wife, R/o. H- No. 3-81/3, Police Station Road, Narsapur, Medak - 502313. 7. T. Poornachander Rao, S/o Late T. Anlaiah, aged 75 years, OCC. Advocate, R/o. H. No. 12-11-725, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

8. G. Anjaiah, S/o G. Vankataiah, aged 65 years, OCC. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 491211, Cherukupally Colony, Near Ambedkar Statue, Quthbulapur, Chintal, Medchal tr/alkajgiri Diskict,. 9- Chinna Ramaiahgari Ramesh, S/o. Chinna Ramaiahgari, aged 65 years, OCC. Business, Rt/o. H. No. 6-641/2, Vimanapuri Colony, Near ZPHS, Quthbulapur, Chintal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. l0.Gundappagari Raju. S/o G. Veeresham, aged 57 years, OCC. Business, RJo, H. No.5-19/1, Kothapally, Yousufpet, Medak 502313.

11. Seela Lingamurthi, S/o Seela Laxminarayana, aged 52 years, OCC. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 3-81/3, Police Station Road, Narsapur, Medak - 502313. AND 1 State of Telangana,, Represented by Public prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad .. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 11 I

2. Akula sree ramulu, S/o Late Akula Vaikuntam, age 53 years, OCC Business, R/o. H. No. 5-28-266141A, Sai Baba Nagar, Qutbullapur, Medchal Malkajgiri District. (Complainant) Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Crime (FlR) No. 258 of 2O25 on the file S H.O., P.S., Bowenpally Hyderabad Commissionerate. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in ihe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of registration of Crime (FlR) No.258 of 2O25 on the file of SHO P.S. Bcwenpally Hyderabad Com nrissione.ate pending final disposal of the above Quasr petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Narender Raj, Advocate for the Petitioners 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 I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11098 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 11 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.25B of 2025 on the file of P.S. Bowenpally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 408, 418, 420, 423,465, 468, 475 read with Section 120(b) of lndian Penal Code and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

2. Heard the submissions of Sri G.Narender Raj, learned courtsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.'1 State

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the present complaint is filed as an afterthought by the de facfo complainant and that there is a suit filed for partition, which is pending before the trial Court vide O.S.No.3SB of 2022 before the I Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. He further submitted that after three years the present complaint is filed by the de facto comqlainant just to harass the petitioners herein and that it is a 2 Court referred complaint and no reasons are assigned by the Magistrate while referring the complaint and also the conditions under Section 175(3) of BNSS are not complied by the police. therefore, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtral . the complaint needs to be quashed.

4. Fle further submitted that during the pendency of the civil cases, a criminal case cannot be instituted and if at all the alleged will deed is forged document, the de facto complainant can take recourse during the pendency of the suit but so far no steps have been taken by the de faclo complainant in the suit to send the will deed to FSL but has filed the criminal case with an ulterior motive, he therefort-., prayed to quash the FIR

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in Anurag Bhatnagar v. Sfafe (NCT of Dethi)2, the Apex Court held that "as the informant had directly moved the lVlagistrale under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without exhausting his statutory remedies, tl.re Magistrate could have avoided taking action on the said application and could have refused to direct for the registration ' 2025 SCC onI-irre SC 238 I 2O2l Livelaw (SC) 742 I .l of the FlR. However, as entertaining an application directly by the IVlagistrate is a mere procedural irregularity and since the It4agistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or wrthout jurisdiction". Therefore, there is nothing wrong committed by the tVlagistrate, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record

7. The allegations do point out the alleged offences against the petitioners herein. The investigation is still in progress. Though the petitioner counsel contends that when there is a civil dispute I pending between both the parties a criminal complaint cannot be entertained and that criminal proceedings should not be continued against the petitioners, in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddf, the Apex Court has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facle exists against the accused persons I 2015 Livcla\\, (SC) 712 l B ln the light of the said decision and in the facts and crrcumstances of the case, since the investigation is at initial stages, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same

9. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to conclude the investigation at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law. Further, the petitioners shall co- operate with the police as and when required for the purpose of investigatior ltiliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, Sd/- M, NAGAMANI TANT REGISTRAR S ,TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 The XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secundeia ad The Station House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station. Hyderabad Trlo CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri G Narender Raj, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copres ,ABK/PR ri- HIGH COURT DATED: 1610E12025 ORDER CRLP.No.11098 of 2025 (- t \ \\ \ t\'I ({o .iHE.:ll ,i i.- .:. (i 0{ NOV ,) P/rr('' !t'' DISPOSINIG C)F THE CRIMINAL PETITION % dRea keo,