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

6. Srinivas Goud Maale, S/o M. Sathyanarayana Goud. Aqed about 48 vears. Occ Business, R/o 7- 5- '13/4/m. Laxminagar Colon!, Mahabubna'gar - 50900'1

7. Sathy_anarayana_Thallam, S/o Thallam Sree Ramulu, Aged about 54 years, Occ Business, No 7- 2- 115, Nehru Nagar, Dhone Mahdal, Kurnool 516 222. --

8. Shali Naik, S/o Allahbakshash, Aged about 75 years, Occ Business, R/o LIG- 87, APHB Colony, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District - 509 301.

9. Athiya Qgguln, W/g Mohammed Mazhar Shareef. Aged about 45 years, Occ Housewife, R/o 8- 5- 65/3/A, Habeeb Nagfar, Mahabubnagar - 509 001. ...PETITIONER/A-'t to A-9 ANO 'l. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad thiough SHO, Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda.

2. Chaluvagali Raghavendra Raju, S/ Business. R/o H. No. 14- 5- 189/6, and District, Telangana. o Papa Raju, Aged about46 years, Occ B. K. Reddy Colony. Mahabubnagar Town ...RESPONOENTS /COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir 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- 329 of ,.025 on the file of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar and qua;h the same l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir 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 connect on with FIR No. 329 ot 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 thr: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argtlnrents of Sri Bala Murali.Y, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithende' Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Te angana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1 / State. The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12666 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 seeking to quash the proceeding6 in FlR. No.329 of 2025 on the flle of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural, Matrabubnagar District, registered for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 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 respondent No.2-Chaluvagali Raghavendra Raju has lodged the subject complaint vrUe F.l.R.No.329 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC against the petitioners and that they have approached the High Court vide Crl.P.No.6518 of 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. Stafe of Biha/. He ' (20r4) t scc 273 ., ETD,J ( rlp.No. 12666-2025 further submitted that the petitioners are facing false allegations and that the complaint does not disclose the details as to who has taken money from the de-facto complainant and cheaterl him. The vague allegation that the petitioners have taken money ,'rr>m the de-facto complainant and have not registered the land is absolutely false. He further submitted that even if it is true, the de-f;r<{o complainant could have approached the Civil Court by filing Spe:ific performance Suit, but instead he has filed the present complaint ust to harass the petitioners herein for ulterior motives. The polrc,e 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, ilre police are not required to conduct any preliminary enquiry. He further submitted that it is specifically alleged that petitioner Nos.1 tc,4 have taken money of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from respondent No.2 and failed to register the land, thus disclosing a cognizable offen<;e under Section 420 of lPC. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petitior.

5. Perused the record 3 LTD.I Crlp.No.12666_2025

6. The contents of the cornplaint points out the prima-facie allegations that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 have promised to sell the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.No272l1 situated in the limits of Palakonda Viilage, to respondent No.2 by making him believe that the property is ancestral property, but they failed to register the same. The contents of the complaint further disclose that the petitioners have cheated respondent No.2. 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 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 t 2025 Live Law SC 8E7 '(20r4) 2 scc I 4 I]1D.J Crlp.No. t2666 2025 permissible in such a situation; however, if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indica:es necessity of an inquiry being conducted, a preliminary inquiry nrary be conducted only to ascertain the facts disclosing cognizable off :rrce, if any. 8. ln the light of the said decisions, the contention of the petitioners' counsel is not tenable.

9. rn the present case, the compraint discroses the offences under sections 417 and 420 of rpc,out of which tt,e offence under Section 420 of lpC is cognizable, therefore, the FIR vvas registered. Hence, the petition lacks merits. 't0 ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications p!!d!ng, if any, shql stand closed SO/. A.PRATHIMA DI:PUTY REGISTRAC //TRUE COPY// \ I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lV Additionat Judiciat Magistrate of First Class, Mahatru bnagar. ' il:irt;il"r:N.?use officer, Mahabubnagar Rurat potice st,tion, 3. One CC to Sri Bata Murali.y, Advocate tOpUCI t 3l8":r?i3,.?3,!ri?"" Prosecutor, Hish court ror the state cr rerangana,

5. Two CD Copies. psx psr K1r HIGH COURT DATED:1 511012025 ORDER CRLP.No.12666 of 2025 DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION .,@ Yr* / \ 14 ((' > () 2510Y6 .{ *oeHcTPA i) ,.- t- l' -n \,' \ \, J, €