The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitrtion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or writ particularly one in the nature of the writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the FIR No.85 of 2015 dated 22-3-2015 on the file of the police station, Mancherial, Adilabad District and quash the same by holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings vide FIR No.85 of 20'l 5 against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 12972 OF 2015) Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further pror;eedings including the arrest of the petitioners in FIR No.85 of 2015 dated 22-3-201 5 on the file of the Police station, Mancherial, Adilabad District pending the d,sposal of the writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WVMP. NO:!316 OF 2015) Between: Akireddy Lingaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, aged 36 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.12- 1 28 12, Goulharrri Na gar, f\/ancherial, Ad ilabad District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Karukuri Chandramouli, S/o Rajaiah, aged 38 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.12-854 Raddy Colony, Mancherial, Adilabad District. Jaggari Sanjeer,', S/o Ramulu, aged 38 years,Occ Business, F/o H.No.13-453, Chinthapanduwada, [\/ancherial, Adilabad District. 2

3. Kasa Gopi, S/o. Ramchander, aged 44 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No.13- 4. The State of -felangana, Rep. by its Prl Secretary, Home Department, 451, Chinthapanduwada, Mancherial, Adilabad District. Secretariat, Hyd erabad. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. The lnspector o'' Police, P.S.Mancherial, Adilabad District. Petition under rSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay grilnted in WP-No.9865/2015 on 8.4.2015 and dismiss the writ petition No.9865 of 2C15 with exemplary costs. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.PRANEETH, REP. FOR SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI B.SREEDHAR, AGP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI A.SURESH, REP. FOR SRI S.RAHUL REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.9865 of 2015 ORDER This writ petition has been filed to invoke the.extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking to quash Crime No. 85 of 2015 dated22.03.2015, on rhe fite of the Mancherial Police Station, Mancherial D rstnct, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. I to 3 for the offences ptrnishable under Sections 420, 468,471,432, 424, and,506 read u ith Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. -I'lic facts giving rise to the filing ol this writ peririon are briel)y stated as under'-

2. l. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the property through a registered sale deed bearing Docurnent No 3832 of 201 l, dated I 1.05.201l, from the original owners, G.Hanumantha Rao and others, by paying valuable sale consideration. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoymcnt of the said propefty, and their names have been mutated in the rer,enue records. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their l'avour. While things stood thus, respondent No. 3 lilcd a complaint on 22.03.?015 srating that he had purchased the 2 propefly fi orn ther protected tenant through an Agreement of Sale dated 28.09.2006 [t was atleged that the vendors of the petitioners had no semblanct: of right. interest, or title over the property while executing the sal,: deed in lavout' ol the petitioners on I 1 05 201 I Based on the said complaint, Crime No' 85 of 2015 was registered'

3. Heard Sr A. Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P. Lakshrna Reddy. lcarned counsel lor the petitioners; Sri B. Sreedhitr, leartrcd Assistant Ciovemment Pleader for Home' appearing on belLalf ol respondent Nos l and 2; and Sri A' Suresh' lean'red couusel represcntirrg Sri S Rahul Reddy' leamed counsel for respondcrlt No. 3.

4. Learned counscl lor the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not conltrittcd any oflf-ence and that thel have been lalsety implir:at:d in the plcsent crime' Even according to the allegations rnacl: in the cornplaint. the ingredients of the offences under Sectiorrs 410. 468. 47 | . 4i2. 124, and 506 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners, as the nature of the allegations made thercir i:; purely civil in nature' He further submits that respondent No. 3 had earlier hled a suit in O'S' No' 188 of 2014 on the file of thc l,:arned Principal Junior Civit Judge, Mancherial, in rcspect o1- tl-rc r erv salne propcrty. seeking a decree 1br perpctual 3 injunction, and the said suit was dismissed lor non-prosecution on

16.01.2025. He further submits that respondent No 3 flled a cornprehensive suit in O.S. No. 34 of 2015 on the hle of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, seeking specific perlomance of the contract of agreement of sale dated

20.09.2006 by directing defendant Nos. I to 3 therein to execute a registered sale deed in his favour. He also sought a declaration that thc registercd sale deeds bearing Document Nos.3832 of 201I antl 5299 of 2011, dated 11.05.2011 and 18.06.2011 respectively, executed b1, delendant Nos.4 to 9 therein, together with the subseclr-rcnt revenue entries rnade in lavour of defendant Nos. t0 to l2 therein, are null and void and not binding on him. He sought a decree of pepetual injunction restraining defendant Nos. i 0 to l2 therein fi'onr alicnating the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on 30.06.2025. Hence, the continuation of the procccdings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse of the process ol- Iarv and is tiable to be quashed.

5. Per cttntra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioners and their vendors have colluded with each other and arc clairning rights over the property on the basis of the registered sale deed bearing Document No. 3832 of 20i l, dated 4

11.05.2011. It is subrnitted that. admittcdly, the vendors olr the petitioners had rro scmblance of rights over the subiect ilropefiy to execute the said sale deed. The petitioners and their vendors, with a dishonest intention, cleated the said documcnt, and thcrefore, the ingredients of the oflences under Sections 420,468,41 l,432,424, and 506 of the tPC are attracted. It is further submitted that the nature of relief sought in the civil suits and the allegations made in the present complaint are distinct and indcpendent of each other. Whether or not thc petitioners have committed the alleged offences can be determin,:d only after a proper investigation. When the case is still at the crirre stage, thc pctitioncls are not entitled to seek quashing of the :roceedings. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned ltssistant Government Pleader tbr l-{orrc reiterated the submissions rnade by the learned counsel lor respondent No. 3.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parlics and upon pelusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming rights over tl-re property to an e{tent of Ac. I 20 guntas in Sy. Nos. 310 and 31 1, situatcd at Manr:herial Shir.'ar of Mancherial Mandal and District. on the basis ol'r'cgistered salc deeds bearing Document Nos. 3832 ( -7 5 ol 20t I and 5299 ol 2011, dated I1.05.201 I and 18.06.2011 respectively, executed by accused Nos. 4 to 6. Whereas, respondent No. 3 - the de f-acto complainant is claiming rights over the same propefty on the basis of an Agreement of Sale dated

20.09.2006 executed by Sri Irukulla(Killa) Mallaiah and others. The record fufther reveals that respondent No.3 filed a suit in O.S. No.34 of 20 l5 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, seeking specific performance of the Agreement olSale dared 20.09.2006 by directing defendant Nos. I to 3 to execute a registered sale deed in his favour or to refund the advance sale consideration along with interest. He also sought a declaration that the registered sale deeds dated 11.05.2011 and

18.06.20 I | , and the revenue entries made in the names of the petitioners, are null and void and not binding upon him, along rvith a relief ol- perpctual injunction. The said suit was dismisscd on i0.06.2025. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 3 is taking further steps against thc judgrnent and decree passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial.

8. The specific case olthc petitioners is that they purchased the propefty through regisrercd sale deeds by paying valuable sale .- \ --'1 6 consideration frcm the rightful owners, and that they are bona flde purchasers. -l'he issue as to whether the vendors of the petitioners had right and ti:le over the propctly to exccute the said sale deeds or not was the very same contention raised by respondcr-rt No. 3 in O.S. No. 34 of 11015, wherein the petitioncrs herein wcre arayed as party defendants. In the said suit, respondcnt No. 3 atso sought a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, dated 11.05.2011 and 18.06.20t1. are nr.rll and r''oid. l-he said suit was dismissed after a full-fledged trial on 30.06.2025. Hencc this Court is o1 the considered view that ingredients lor the offences levelled against the petitioners are not attracted

9. It is pr:(inent to mention that the larv gol'ernitlg the exercisc of inherent pov/ers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary ',vrit jurisdictiorr undet Articte 226 is well settled bv thc decision in Stale of Har-vano v. Bhaian Lalr. rvherein the Hon'blc Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as u,herr tlLe allegations taken at lacc vallte do not constitute an oft-ence, are abr;urd or inherently improbable. are actuated by rnala fides, or, where continuance of proceedings wotrld amortnt to abttse ' l99l supp ) s,lc l-rj 7 r of process, rvhile cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to sccure the ends ofjustice. i 0. F'or the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courr in Bhajan Lul,s case (supra), this Court is ol the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction or- [his cout under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution ol India to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. I t. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/acc u sed Nos. I to 3 in FIR No.g5 of 2015 on the file of thc Mancherial porice Station, Mancherial District are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confincd lbr-the purpose of deciding this case. As a seque[, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. SRIDEVI ISTANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Prl Secretary, -Home Departrment, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Secretariat, _ HyoeraDao, State ot lelangana. 2. The lnspector of Police, p.S.tManchrerial, Adilabad District. 3. One CC to SRt P.LAKSHMA REDoY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRt S.RAHUL REDDY, Advocate tOiUCl 5. Two CCs to cP FOR HOME, High Court'for the State of Telangana at 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BSR s HIGH COURT DATED:27nA12025 CC TODAY ,.\', . r. yi. ,<\ t) * 0[I 2$fi -z c) Plil'C ORDER WP.No.9865 of 2015 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS q J