The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public P^r9s.ec.ut9r' High Court for tr'rJsiiie of feiang-ana Rt Hyderabaa thiough SHo, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Rachakonda. Raohavendra Raiu Chaluvagali, S/o Papa Raju, Aged about 46 years, Occ' riJiiness, R/o H.ilo.14-5-18!/6, B.K. Ri{dy cotony, Mahabubnagar Town and District,Telangana. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 call for the records in FIR No.362 ot 2025 on the file of Mahabubnagar Rural Pollice Station, Mahabubnagar and quash the same' l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Pelition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including, affest of the petiiioners in connection with FIR No.362 of 2025 on the file of Mahabubnagar hural police Station, Mahabubnagar, pending disposal of the main Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bala Murali.Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1 / State and none appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER: / /) // THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIM!NAL PETITION No.12377 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FlR. No.362 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences under Sections 417,42Q and 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short, 'lPC').

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier respondent No.2-Chaluvagali Raghavendra Raju has lodged a complaint against petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and others vide F.l.R.No.329 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 ot IPC and that they have approached the High Court vide Crl.P.No.65'18 ot 2025 seeking anticipatory bail and the Court has directed the Police to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and also to follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar ) ETD,J Crlp.No.l2377_2025 vs. Sfafe of Biharl. He further submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations and that the complaint does not disclose as to how the petitioners cheated the de facto complainant. The present complaint is filed just to harass the petitioners herein for ulterior motives. The police have simply registered the case, without even conducting the preliminary enquiry and thus, abused the process of law. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that once the compliant discloses cognizable offences, the police are not required to conduct any preliminary enquiry. He further submitted that it is specifically alleged that the petitioners have taken money of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and failed to hand over physical possession of the land to respondent No.2, thus disclosing a cognizable offence under Section 420 of lPC. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint points out the prima facie allegations that the petitioners have promised to sell the land to an extent of 1500 square yards in Sy.Nos.232 and 233 situated in the limits of Yedira to respondent No.2 and executed Doc.No.SS27 of ' 1for+y a scc zrr / 3 ETD.J Crlp.No. 12377_2025 2024 by making him believe that the property is ancestral property and at the time of purchase of his plot, it was an open plot and when he went to the said land for fencing, it was already fenced by some others and thus, the petitioners failed to hand over physical possession of land purchased by him. Thus, prima-facie case is pointed out against the petitioners. The investigation is still in progress.

7. The petitioners' counsel contends that when the matter is of civil nature, the Police ought to have conducted preliminary enquiry before registering the FlR. ln Vinod Kumar Pandey and Another Vs. Seesh Ram Saini and Orsz, it was laid down that once cognizable offence, is disclosed from the complaint, the Police need not conduct any preliminary enquiry. The Apex Court has reiterated \ the principles laid down in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of lJttar I / Pradesh and orss and held that registration of FtR is mandatory under Section 154 cr.P.c., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry before FIR is permissible in such a situation; however, if the information received does-not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates necessity of an 2 2025 Live Law SC 887 '1zor+;2 scc I 4 ETD.J Cdp.No. t23 77-202i rnquiry being conducted, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain the facts disclosing cognizable offence, if any. 8. ln light of the said decisions, the contention of the petitioners, counsel is not tenable.

9. ln the present case, the compraint discroses the offences under Sections 411,420 and 506 of lpC, out of which the offence under Section 420 of lpC is cognizable, therefore, the FIR was registered. Hence, the petition lacks merits.

10. ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed Miscerlaneous apprications pending, if any, shafl stancr crosed \ //TRUE COPY// essrsranrsrD{-eud8YRlA G SECTION OFFTCER To, ;tfi".;fi[{i:Jfl "t*i:'slT,xffi [if"":!5n,"#.".6,*%*abubnasar j.flff{fog1,,bi,if*}gti5:#:fi,;t%8,?#,?*"s,a,eorre,ansana, PSK /SA FIIGH COURT DATED:15l,1012025 , r4r oR lHE S14 3, lz nrc 2pp (\\( e * 'srtl icr-ti-c * ORDER CRLP.No.12377 of 2025 I i : i i I I I I I I I I I ISMISSED THE CRIMTNAL PETITION { a