The High Court · 2025

3. Pyata Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Late P.[Vlohan Reddy, Aged 52 years, Occ: Private Employment, R/o. Plot No.1632, Venkatadri Nagar, Asman Ghad, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ... RespondenUDefacto Complainant 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 FIR in Crime No. 621 of 2017 on the file of L.B Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, so far as it relates to the petitioners (A-2 and A-3) herein U/Sec. 420, 403, 120-8 R/w 34 of lndian Penal Code and Sec. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act -1988 & Section 82 of Registration Act 1908. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 stay all further proceedings in Crime No. 62112017 on the file of L.B Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy district, so far as it relates to the petitioners (A-2 and A-3) herein U/Sec. 420, 403, 12O-B R/w 34 of lndian Penal Code and Sec. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act -1988 & Section 82 of Registration Act 1908, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon-hearing the ar-guments of Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the iespondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondents No.2 & 3. -Sri The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11699 0F 2025 ORDER: . This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.621 of 2017 on the file of P.S. L.B Nagar, Rachakonda District, registered for the offences under Sections 420,419, 403, 468, 471,120-8 ot the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC'), Section 13(1XD), 13(2)'.ot Prevention of Conuption Act and Section 82 of Registratie6r'ftfif-':

2. .Heard the srlbmissions of Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petithner.b hnd Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learnbd Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. :i:' i .:'l

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, Drishala Naresh Chowdary, served as Managing Director of U2 Exim P!rt. Ltd. only for fifteen days,'from 09.07.2015 to 25.07.2015. However, on

02.09.2015,, when he was no longer MD, he allegedly conspired with accused P. Anil Kumar Kishen, P. Padmaja Kishen, and T. Ramesh Chandra Reddy to,execute Document No. 18326 of 2015 at the Sub- Registrar Office, LB Nagar. This was done without producing the 2 ETD,J Crlp.No.l1699 2025 original link docunpft'$tr. 137t2O13) related to the property-Plot No.5, measuring Ac.4.247 at Hardware Park, Kancha lmarath, Raviryala Village, ,t5l*aram Mandal. Accused No.4, T. Ramesh ..!.j, Chandra Reddy, allebeilly allowed the registration without verifying the required documents, Meanwhile; or the same day, Madduru Uma Shankar, the origftnal MD of U2 Exim Pvt. Ltd., executed a self- mortgage deed on the,same property at SRO Maheshwaram vide Doc. No. 4064 of 2015. The prosecution claims the accused iconspired to fraudulently register the Iand to gain wrongful profit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 3, and are facing false :'allegations in the hands of the de-facto cornplainant and that he ,r-..ineVer-_ cheated anyone and that he has not done any Act to attract !. the offences under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for ACB has submitted that thd. petitioners have swindled away lakhs of rupees under the guise of registering the lands, which do not belong to them. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.l 1699 2025

6. Perused the record.

7. lt is alleged that the accused No.1/8. Naresh Chowdary worked as MD of U2 Exim Private Limited for 15 days from 0g.07.2015 to 25.07.2015 and that subsequently on 02.09.2015 he conspired with the petitioners herein and one T. Ramesh Chandra Reddy/accused No.4 and executed document No.18326 of 2015 without producing any original link documents at the Sub-Registrar Officetat;L'.B Nagar over the property i.e., plot N0.5ito an extent of Ac.A4.24V at Hardware Park and that accused No.4 has registered the said document without verifying the relevant documents. lt is further alleged that the original MD of U2 Exim Private Limited Sri Mad$.rru'Umashankar had executed a self mortgage deed on the : ,. sarne: property at the concerned SRO vide document No.4064 of

2015. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired with each other and got registration of the land by colluding with accused No.4 with an intention to get wrongful gain.

8. The case of the respondent No.2 is that he is one of the many victims of ponzi scheme having fallen prey to the cheating committed by Madduru Umashankar, who under the guise of Spiritual Guru collected Crores of Rupees after enticing victims with false promises 4 ETD,J Crlp.No.l1699 2025 \: \ and by violating existirf,iq{aws and misappropriated the same. lt is alleged that Madduru Umashankar siphoned off the deposits collected by using a rnaf€.of fictitious companies and doing intra cempany transactions blhrueen them to dupe Banks and depositors. Thus, the petitioners are facing serious allegations. The investigation is still in progress and thBfruth is yet to be unravelled.

9. The record further points out that Crores of Rupees have been swindled away alleging the commission of a serious economic :.' ,.: ; offence. The petitioner eounsel has relied upon Urmila Devi and Others Vs. Balram and Anotherl. ln the said case, one Shri Ram Baksh Dubey has executed an un-registered will bequeathing all his movable and immovaQle pyoperties in the name of his four daughters-in- law as his legatees who,.naturally, are. the respective wives of testator's four sons. The reason for the said will deed is that he was under the fear of his esfafe getting jeopardte*and * .n '!+ ''-. trammeled by the alcoholic obsessron of his third son Ashish Kur#,ii. After the death of the testator, the third son of the testator has executed a sale deed in favour of the third party, white the beneficiaries of the witti.e., the four daughters-in-law approached the authorities and the mutatioh: order was passed in their favour. lMhile so, : the purchaser of the land sold by the third son sfarfed interfering with their possession. Hence, they approached the Civil Court and the trial Court ' str 1crt.;.No.lo25 of 2ot9 ) t. 5 ETD,J Crlp.No.l 1699 -2025 has granted ad-interim injunction in their favour. Aggrieved by the said interim order of injunction, the objections were filed questioning the petition and the same were reiecfed. Subsequently, complaint was filed by the purchaser stating that the appellants i.e., the daughters-in-law of the testator have fraudutentty forged the un-registereta witt after the death of the testator with an intention to nuttify the sate deed executed by the third son of the testator. After a period of 16 years, an application was filed by the accused seeking quashment of the complaint and it was dismissed. The High Court took a view that the allegations clearty satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged.th'eie under and that the question l: ..,.:. whether the documenf r's forged or noi id tne matter to be examined in the inquiry. Hence, dr'smrssed the quash petitlon.

10. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it has held that the saving of High Court inherent powers in both the civil and criminal matters is desrgne d to achieve salutary pubttic purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate to a weapon of harassment or.persecution. Thus, it was further obserued that the instant case is just another one in a string of cases filed in the recent years that seek to disguise the civil dispute as criminal. The complaint case was pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve any purpose and therefore, the proceedings were quashed! \ \ \ \ \ \ I t &' 6 ETD,J Crlp.No.l 1699_2025

11. The facts of the,cited decision differ from those in the case on hand. The allegations are completely different which point out that the petitioners alongu..with the other accused have created a document with a criminal intention, got property registered without producing the link documents, while one Madduru Umashankar who is the Original MD of'' U2 Exim Private Limited has mortgaged the same property at the cpncerned SRO. Thus, the cited decision is not applicable to the case on hand. The allegations point out an j.. economic offence of serious nature. The petition lacks merits and the . same is liable to be dismissed. ..,':r'i- ;' l

12. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. :.t,,1 shall stand closed ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Miscellaneous applications pending, if NOTE: This order is amended as per the Court order dated 18-11-2025 in l.A.No.3 of 2025 by deleting the "Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned standing counsel for ACB & Special public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2," in para No.2 and . replacing "The learned Standing Counsel for ACB" with "The Learned Additional public prosecutor,,, in para No.S. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. SRE IVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER The ll Metropolitan Magistrate, LB Nagar, Rachakonda. The Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies To,

1. 2. 3. IAL t v k*n HIGH COURT DATED i1311012025 LBIlr ltots ORDER CRLP.No.11699 of 2025 (r t-! , q: [3 EErM z * HEC L )' ) * DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION j \7