A Cr.P.C. and also to follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biha/.He

2. C. Vijay Kumar, S/o C. Srishailam, Aged about 33 years. Occ Business, R/o H.No.'1-59, Konded Village, Pedda Adirala Post, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the fvtemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No.366 of 2025 On the file of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar and quash the same. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in connection with FIR No.366 of 2025 On the file of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar, pending disposal of the main Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the ar,J Murali.Y, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithenct Additional Public Prosecuior, High Court for the State of Te on behalf of the Respondent No.1 / State and none appear(x No.2 he [vlemorandum of rments of Sri Bala r Rao Veeramalla, angana, Hyderabad for the Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER: /,/ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12376 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FlR. No.366 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural, Mahabubnagar District, registeied for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 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 one Chaluvagali Raghavendra Raju has lodged a complaint against the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and others vide F.l.R.No.329 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC and that they have approached the High Court vide Crl.P.No.6518 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 vs. State of Biha/.He ' (20t4) 8 scc 273 2 \ ETD,J Clrlp.No. t 2376 2025 further submitted that the petitioners are facing fals;t allegations and that the complaint does not disclose as to ho'r, the petitioners cheated the de facto complainant. The present conl )laint is filed just to harass the petitioners herein for urterior motives the porice have simply registered the case, without even conducting the preliminary enquiry and thus, abused the process of law. quash the proceedings. He ther :fore, prayed to 4' The rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor har; submitted that once the compliant discroses cognizabre offences, il-t porice are not required to conduct any preliminary enquiry. He ftrr :her submitted that it is specifically alleged that the petitioners have t rken money of Rs.60 lakhs and failed to hand over physical possess on of the land to respondent No.2, thus disclosing a cognizable lffence under Section 420 of lpC. He therefore, prayed to dismiss tl t petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint points out fl- ( prima facie allegations that the petitioners have promised to seil t re land to an extent of 6O0 square yards in Sy.Nos.232 and 233 r; :uated in the limits of Yedira and executed Doc.No.5526 of 2024 <> r 0g.0i.2024 by makipgfhim believe that the property is ancestral pr,perty and at I i l 3 ETD.J Crlp.No. 123 76_2025 the time of purchase of the 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 Ors2, 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 Uttar Pradesh and Ors3 and held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry before FIR is i permissible in such a situation; however, if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates necessity of an inquiry being conducted, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain the facts disclosing cognizable offence, if any. 2 2025 Live Law SC 887 ' 1zo t+y z scc t I , 4 \ .!- ETI)..I Crlp.No.l2376 2025 8 ln light of the said decisions, the contenticr of the petitioner counsel is not tenable

9. ln the present case, the complaint disclcs :s the offences under Sections 4.17 and 420 of lpC, out of which il e offence under Section 420 of lpC is cognizable, therefore, the Fl ; was registered. Hence, the petition lacks merits.

10. ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismisserl lVliscellaneous apq-ljcations pending, if any, sh: I stand closed. . i I To, Asr rsyapsrffi,SYRlA //TRUE COPYII /-. SECTION OFFICER 1_ The lV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnaga ". ' il:?"1i[::tlouse officer, Mahabubnasar Rurar porice s ation, 3. One CC to Sri. Bala Mur . ffr":f,t ir+;;;: "_J;llli.i"",#l*" 5 Two cD copies. w --'r' r 'rv'r \-uur lor the stat'-' cf relangana' PSIVSA t I HIGH COURT DATED:1511012025 l 1 , ORDER CRLP.No.12376 ot 2025 - i1E SI4 I 'J.. c U [i[ |ffi 2 ,.. _Hi: . . .:;::-.:-' ' \a .r/r' DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION