The High Court · 2025

AND Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, nUComplainant 2. Sri. bAYAPA ANAND REDDY, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged about 63 years, Occ- Retd. Employee, Ri/o. Flat No. 20, Road-No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad of Telangana. For the state ...RespondenUDefacto Gomplainant 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 proceedings in C. C. No. 163 ot 2025, U/Sec. 316(2)' 318(4) R/w 3(5) BNS on the file of the Leamed Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy. NO: I OF 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 C. C. No. 163 of 2025,1or the offences U/Sec. 316(2), 313(4) R/w 3(5) 8NS on the file of the Learned Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy, including personal appearanoe of the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr LINGAI1A SUDHEER, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Adclitional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL No .10978 0F TWI1 This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.163 of 2O25 on the file of learned Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ,2023 (tor short, 'BNS').

2. Heard Sri Lingala Sudheer, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have neither cheated nor committed any criminal breach of trust as alleged. None of the ingredients in the complaint attract the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the dispute is purely of civil in nature. ln case, the allegations of the de facto complainant are true and the petitioners have received the advance sale consideration and failed to register the land in the name of the de fac"Io complainant, then a Suit for specific \ performance has lo be 2 ETDJ Crl.P.No.l0978 of2025 filed before the competent civir court, instead the de facto complainant has resorted to criminal proceedings, which is not justified and not maintainable. He further submitted that petitioner No.2 herein has filed a Writ petition wde W.p.No.I 5049 ol 2024 before this Court and obtained orders in his favour, wherein the revenue authorities were directed to dispose of the mutation application ftled by petitioner No.2 herein within a period of eight weeks. Thus, the de facto complainant has falsely filed the present case against the petitioners herein. Leamed counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon a judgment of the co_ ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.p.No.S435 of 201g, dated 09.01 .2O2g. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceeclings in the present C.C. against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals that the petitioners herein have created a document without there being any land in existence and thus, there is an element of criminality in this case. Hence, the criminal proceedings are maintainable. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal petition.

5. Perused the record. 3 ETD,J Crl-P-No.l097t of2025 lt is alleged that the de facfo complainant is in 6. acquaintrance with petitioner No.1, who is an agent in Jana Chaitanya Real Estate Corporation, and out of the said acquaintance, believing the words of petitioner No.1, he has expressed his interest to purchase land. Then a proposal came from petitioner No.1 that there is land admeasuring Ac-2{0 in Survey No.387 at Shabad worth Rs.60,00,000/-, and that they shall take one acre each. The de facto complainant has agreed to the said proposal and initially, he has paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to petitioner No.1. Thereafter, petitioner No'1 brought agreement papers to lhe de facto complainant's house, which is already signed by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein as vendors and by petitioner No.1 as one of the vendees. Then the de facto complainant also signed on the said agreement believing petitioner No.1. Thereafter, the de facto amplainant has again transferred Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently, on his persistent demands also, registration of the land did not take place' On his enquiry, the de facto complainant came to know that no such land existed in the name of petitioner No.2-Gaddam Laxmaiah' It is alleged that though there is no land available in the narne of petitioner No.2, petitioner No.1 has made the de facto 4 ETDJ Crl-P.No.l09Z8 of2025 complainant to beligve in existence of the land and has induced him to pay the amounts and thereafter, the petitioners in corusion have denied registration of the land, as there is no such land in existence. The alregation against the petitioners herein is that the said agreement of sale itself is a fake document, as it appears to have been executed with regard to the land which croes not exist at all. Thus, the allegations pima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioners herein.

7. ln Crl.p.No.5435 of 2018, retied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the de facto complainant therein filed a Suit for specific performance and the same was decreed in favour of the de facfo complainant therein, but on appeal, the same was set aside by the concemed Distfict Judge, on the grouncl that the de facto comprainant therein faired to prove the transaction and that there is a delay of nearly six years in filing the Suit, and against the same, a revision is preferred before this Court and the same is pending. ln that back drop, it is held that since there is already a civil litigation pending before this Court on the same subject mafter and that the allegations therein do not attract the offences under Sections 406, 415, 41g and 420 ot l.p.C, the proceedings against the o, _ _etitioners therein were quashed. But, in \ t,/ _ 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No. 10976 of 20i!5 the present case, the atlegations refer to creation of a document. The agreement of sale is alleged to have been executed with regard to the land which does not exist at all. Therefore, the facts . ofthe said case differfrom the presentcase and the same cannot be applied to the present case. Since the matter is pending before the trial Court, the truth or otherwise in the allegations and the strength of the evidence need to be decided during the course of tria]. Hence, it is held that the Criminal Petition lacks merit. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. S: MALLIKARJUNA RAO /ITRUE COPY// G To,

1. 2. 3.

4. 5. The Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. The Station l-{ouse Offrcer, Shabad Police Station, Cyberabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, al Hyderabad. [OUfl One CC to Mr. LINGALA SUDIIEER, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies ,F. RC/SA HIGH COURT a E 9111 2, I 25 E c LP.No.1097 of 2O25 'tHE S TA ( () !- O 9 JAN 1lJ1b t \\ A \i * Accordingly, this Criminal petition is Disposed of 1 g W