The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings in c.c,No.2070212019 on the file of the Court of the lll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad' pending against the Petitioner. Note: As per the Court Order dated 14.02.2025 in l.A. No. 1 of 2024 CC' Number is amended l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pteased to STAY all further proceedings in c.c.No.207o212019 on the file of lll AOOt. Cf i"t Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending against the Petitioner, including dispensing his personal attendance before the court, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr' A.S.Vasudevan, representing M/s. lril.V. Raj Kumar Galbriel, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri E_Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: --_---. THE HOIIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENIIGOPAL CRIIVTINAL PETITION No.1O273 AF 2O2.1 ORDER: Thi:; (lrirnina-l Petition is hled under Sec:ti or.. 482 of Cr.P.C., h',. the petitioner/ accused, seekin5i to qrLash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2O7O2 of 2'O79t pending on the file ol II t Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered in Cr.No.11O1 of 2OO9 for the offences punishabte trr der Sections 420 and 468 of Indian peral Code.

2. Hearcl 1,4 r.A. S.Vasudevar, learned counsel :epr.esenting petitioner e, rcl Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor lc.r- respondent No. 1-State. Perused the rec crd.

3. The brr:' facts of the case are that on 2O.OB2Ol9, respondent I\ o. 2 / complainant lodged a complaint s rating that he is thr, ,;wner of house bearing Plot No.'27, Vikr.Lspuri Colony, SR llagar, Hyderabad and he has gir.en the same on rent to tlte petitioner herein and another. D Lrrirrg the said sta) , 1.1r,: petitioner and the complailan. got acquainted with each other, out of such acquaintancr:, the petitioner hzts taken the house related docurnen ts of Eyr", C|LP.No.10273 oJ 2O21 2 respondent No.2 /complainant on regolarization of the Municipal Tax etc., but did not return the pretext of the documents and he has also taken Rs.15,OO0/- from respondent No.2/complainant and troubled him in returning the documents stating that the documents are not with him and they are with somebody else and created false documents and sold out the house to some others. Basing on the complaint made by the complainant, a case is registered in Cr.No.l1O1 of 2OO9 for the offence under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

4. dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and a civil suit is l-rled by the petitioner herein against respondent No.2 and his family members seeking for Specific Performance in respect of subject mentioned property in O'S'No'568 of 2OO9 on the file of learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He further contended that in order to implicate the petitioner herein with a malafide intention a fa-lse case was foisted against him. He further contended that .a.., 3 EW,J <:rLP.M).10273 oJ 2o2 t it took 1C 1o.-rg years for the police S.R. Nagzir tc, cor.nplete the investigatic,r-r that too after f,rling of certain Wr:it p::titions to ascertain tire stage of investigation and the investigr.rtion does not reveel lltat the petitioner has cheated responder.rt No.2 at any poi.t ;f time, except making contradi,:torv st.atements that the pe ,.ti:ner has obtained signatures of the re,spondent No.2 anri h.s; wife and concocted the documents as if the house is scrrl r.o the petitioner. He further cortendecr that the main contpl;.int against the petitioner is that he has prepared forged and fa hricated documents pertaining to r.he house of respondenl lrlo.2, which itself is not proved by the investigaling officer, in the absence of eviderLce to tr)rove the alleged creiulSr: under sectio n 46g of Ipc, rhe qut,stion of implicating th: petitioner under Section 42o of lpc ,:roes not arise. He iur.rher contended that there is no evicence or materia,l plercr:ri on record to prove the alleged ,:hanges against the petitione - herein and the prosecution fail:d to pr.ove the case beyoeri al reasonable doubts. Therefore, he prayed to allow the OrirrLinal petition. 1 \ 4 ErI,- CiLP-No.1O273 oJ 2O2i

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. A perusal of record reveals that the above mentioned contentions are disputed questions of fact, which need to be gone into by the trial Court. Hence, the appearance of the petitioners/ accused before the trial Court is dispensed with unless his presence is specifrcally required during the course of trial, subject to the condition of petitioner being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing, failing which this order stands vacated automatically.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of , granting liberty to agitate ali the issues and grounds that are raised before this Court including filing of discharge application before the concerned Court' In the event of such application being made, the concerned Court shall dispose it of on merits. \ \ 5 DW,J crt.P.No.10273 oJ 2O21 Mi sr'ell;rneous applications pending, if arri', shall stand closed. To, ,/TRUE COPY// SD/- A .SREE oql.T,: NIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR SEcrton oFFlcER

1. The lll Arldl. O rief tr/letropolitan tvlagistrate at Hyderakrad' 2. The Station 1-r,trse offic&, S R Nag-ar Police Station Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to rh: puntic p]oselutot'"State of Telangana' Hiqh Court Buildings' at HyderabaC OUT) One CC to I)r M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel, Advocate [OF'UC] Two CD C,)f ) €s 4 t PSI(ghw HIGH COURT DATED:141O2120:25 ORDER CRLP.No.1 027:3 ol 2021 .g I4 o o ,,) 2 5 ,itttv 2W (- -.! .t ,/,, .-'-r' DISPOSED OF TIIE ]RIMINAL PETITION 6 offd <) s^: