Mala Choudhary and another v. State of Telangana and another

Order

This Crimin:rl Petition has bcen filccl ur-rclcr Scction 48r of thc Codc of Crirninal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'thc Cr.P.C.) by the petitioners / accr-rsed Nos.l anci 2 secl<ing to qLrash thc proceedings in C.C.No-Bl1 of 2O14 on thc filc of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrir.Lc, Kukertp:rlly, liirrrga Rcddy Districl, lor the offence undcr Scclion 42O ol thc Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'thc IPC')

2. Brief facts of the case: Respor-rdent No.2 iiled a private complaint beforc the IX Mctropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpaily, on 17.12.2OO9 stating that the petitioners have forged and fabricated clocurnents includir-rg the revenue records i.e., Form 13-C, Form 13-t3, proceedings No.B/2657 / 1990 dated 15.Oa.199O and PaLtadar passbooks by causing wrongful Ioss to him and members of M/s. Bhagranagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited, and Frled suit in O.S.No. 1457 of 2OO9 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the

defendants frorn interfering with the suit schedule property. After receiving the sumrnons in the above said surit, res!'oqdent No.2 came to know that the petitioners have l create cl :.r lr.l iirl)r'icurtcd the documents arn<l claiming rights ovcr Lhc pr-opcrLics. When rcspondcnt No.,l approached t.l-rc Manclal lft ,. r:nurr: ()fllccr sccking cletails .)1' t he pattadar passbool.:s rrr-rci Rr>R procecdings, Lhc i\l:rnclal Revenuc ()fficcr. ;rl-t,:r r:onclut-ting enqrrirv in[ormcc him tlrat thc pattadlrr lriissbooks $.'ere rlot issucd bv thl: officiais of thc Manda] Rer cnuc Olfi<:er, Balanagar Mandal rrncl also issuccl Memo d:rLcil 17.O9.2OO9, r^,'herein it is st,rtccl thaL Fornr No.13-ll. F rrrn No.13-C in Irile No.RORl'),' -)-69r,199O arc not avrriial-lc irr tl're <>lfice i.c., Mand:r1 l?cvr:nrte Officc. Balanagar lvlanclal. Rasing on the said pnvate cornplaint, learnerl M rgistratc had rclcrred the :natter to Madhapur Irolir:c Stzrtion undcr Scctior-l 156(3) of thc Cr.P.C. for irrvcsligation, :rccordir-rglv, tt'rc prolice registered the Crimt: )1o.734 of 2OO9 for the olfenccs ttnder Sections 42O, 468 ar rd -17 1 of the IPC and thc lnve:;tigating olficer aJter conclu,:tin5i inr,cstigation hlccl a charg,: sheet for Lhe offence unrier Secti<>n 42O ol the IPC arLC deleted thc offences unrier Sections 468 and 47 1 of the' IPC. Learned Magistrate' Iook thc: cognizance and issu,:d summons. Aggrieved b-r. the same, the petitioners tllt 11 the present criminal per itiorr seeking to quash the ;.rroceeclings 111 C.C.No.Bl7 of 2OI4. 3

3. Heard Mr. T. Praclyumna Kumar Reddy, leartred Senior Counsel, represcnting Mr. N. Bhavani Shankar, Icarncd counsel for lhc petitioncrs, Mr. P. Prerl-rhakar Rcdcl-r., lcarncd counscl lor re sponclcnt No.2, and Mr. M Vivckanzlnda Redcllz, learnecl Assistant Public ProsecuLor appearing for respor-rdent No.1 State.

4. Subrnissions of learned counsel for the petltiglre1q:

4.1. Leerrncd Senior Counsel submitted that the pctitioners havc not cornmitted the olfence ancl they falsely implicated in the crime. 'lhe petitioncrs are the lawful owners and they have purchased the property through sada sale dced dated 12.O5.19a3 by paying vaiuilblc sale considcration and they are bonaflde purchzrsers. The rcvenue authorities after lollowing the mandatory proccdure prescribed under thc provisions of Telerngana Rights in Land and Pattaclar Passbooks Act, 1973 (for short, 'the RoR Act') issued regularizerti<;n proceedings and their names were mut.rted in the rcvel-rue rccorcls and pattadar passbooks wcre also issued in their l'ar,<.rur

4.2. Hc further subrnitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredicnts of Section 42O of t hc IPC do not attract. \ + 'lhe N4ernclal Revenuc Oflicer, Balanagar Marrdal, filcd aflidavit b,:[orr: thc .Joint C]ollector, Rangzr Redd1, District, whercin h': spccilicaliv stated that RoR ltrocecclings ancl mutal.ion l)ro('( cd in qs I rt Rcv.No.D5/737 I ,''2O 1O issucd in favour ol lhc pctitioncrs arc gcnuir-ie. 'I'hc Investigating Officer aft er conducting tht>rough investigzrtion rightly deletecl thc oflcnccs under Sections 468 ar-ril 47 L of Lhe IPC. on thc othcr hand fiiccl a chargc shect frrr tl:c olfcnce undcr Section 42') of thc lPC, though thc ingrcclir:n ts for t hc said offencc do r.r ot altrelct.

4.3. He also submitted that the natr-lrc ol'the ailegations made in the cornplaint ar(: purely civil ir: nature and to dissolve the civil disputcs, respondcnt No.2 filcd the cornplain t ancl the sarne is not perrnit' rd under law, cspecialllr the petitioncrs filed a suit in t,).S.No.1457 of 2OO9 and the samc is pending bcforc t.he <:ompctent civil Court.

4.4. Learr-red Senior Counsel vehemently ,rontctrdccl that once the Investigating Officcr came to t he r:onclttsion that the oflenccs under Sections 468 and 47 | r'f thc IPC have not establi:;hcd against tl-re petitioners, th,- offence under Section 4i'.O of the IPC do not attract against the \) petitioners. Hence, the continr-ration of the proceedings for the offence under Section 42O of the IPC against the pctitioncrs is clcar :rbuse o{-tI-re proccss of iaw.

4.5. In support of his subrnission, he relied upon the [ollor,r,ing judgments:

1. Ashok Kurnar Jain w. State of Gujarathl;

2. Mala Choudhary and another v. State of Telangana and another2;

3. Delhi Race Club {1940) Ltd. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another3; ancl

4. Jit Vinayak Arolkar w- State of Goa and othersa.

5. Submissions of leafned counsel for respondent No.2

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are claiming rights over the property situated at Kaitalapur Village, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, covered by Sy.No.1OO7, basing upon the un-registered sale deed datcd 12.05"1983, which is a sharrr docr.rrnent, and the alleged validation of proceedings issued by the revenlle authorities are lorged and fabricated 1 2oz5 scc online 998 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1474 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 22"18 4 2025 SCC Online SC 31 6 documents. He fi-rrther submitted that as on the date of the zrllegc<l document, dated 12.O5.19a3. Mandal System ivas not <'stablished and thr: Mand:rl S\:;Lcm c:rtnc int<r existerrce in the year 1985 only. Thc pctitioners, lrom inception rvilh a dishonest intcntion to claim thc rights ovcr the property created forged and fabricated rlocuments including revcnlre proceedings, filed suit in O.S.No.1457 ol 2OO9 belore the Principal .Junior Civil .Judqc, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for grant of pcrpr:tual injunction. After receiving the surrrmons in the suit only, rcspondent No.2 and mernbers of thc Bhagyanagarr Cooperative Housing Society Limited came to know th:rl the pctitioners are claiming rights over thc property bascri upon a forged and fabricated documcnts.

5.2. He further submitted that the Merdhapur Police, during the investigation of Crirne No.734 of 2OO9, sourght details of Pattadar Passbooks and ROR rer:or<ls pertaining to Survey No. IOOT of l(aitalapur Village. [n rcsponse to that the Deputy Collector and Tahsilrlar, Balanagar Mandal, through Letter No.B/4a2/20 1O dated 23.O1.2010, informed*that Pattadar Passbooks No. 3.54 lBl and 3S4 182 and Title Deeds No. 362698 and 362699 <:orresponding to 7 Patta Nos. 162 and 163 were not issued to the petitioners. Further, there were no entrics, proceedings, or F orrns 13-B and 13-C in File No.B/lt()R/2693/ 199O in the narncs of thc petitioners. The Tahsildar confirmecl that Pattadar Passbooks and Titlc Deeds were not issucd in favour of the petitioners from the officc of Mandal Revenue Office, Balangar, and do not exist in the official rcvenLre records. However, the Investigating Officer solely based on the affidavit filed by Mr. Jayaraj, who is a retired Mandal Revenue Ofilcer, before thc Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in RBV.No.D5/737 | /20lO dated 03.O3.2012, deleted the olfences under Sections 468 and 47 1 of the IPC, even without verifying the proceedings issued by the Mandal Revenue Office, Bzrlarnagar, and Dcputy Tahasildar, Balanagar, fiied a charge sheet lor the offence under Section 42O ol the IPC.

5.3. He further submittecl that thc pctitioners filed suit for perpetr-ral injr-rnction ancl arlong with thc said suit filed temporary injunction applicertion and tl-rc said application was disrnissecl by Lhc lcerrnr:cl Principtrl Scnior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, and the said order was confirrned in 8 C.M.A.No.45 of 2013 on O9.O3.2O17 anri the above said orders 1r avc become final.

5.4. [.earncd counsel further subn.itt'. ci thelt mcrell: beczruse of deletion of the olfcnces undc:r siecti()ns 468 and 47 | of thr: IPC by the Investigating Offi<:e;-. lt,hile llling thc final report, the petitioners are not ,:ntitled to seek quashing of the proceedings for the offcn,-c uncler Section 42O of thc IPC. There are specific erl)r:gations levelled against t1-rc petitioners that lrom inc,.:ption th<:y are claiming the subject property with a dishonest intcntion in the absence of any rights, interest over the lrroperty.

5.5. Learned counsel furthcr submirted that complainant/informant/ prosecution rvor-rld not precluded frorn seeking a remed.y if I he Investigating Authoritiesi have failed in their duty by not including into the final report/charge sheet all Scctions ol the IPC, or-r which the offence can be held to have br:e:n made out i r-r spite ol thr: facts disclosed in the F.l.R. Hr: also submittcd that the IezLrned Magistrate cannot add or s.rbtracl Sections at the tirne: of taking cognizance based on a police report. However, the learned Magistrate is having p()wer to :rdd the offences aitd the same would be permissibir: at the time of L) framing of the charges uncler Sections 216, 278 or 228 ol the Cr.P.Q and that stage has not been reached in the present case-

5.6. He further submittcd thert there are specillc allegations leveiled against [hc petitiont:rs that they forged and created tLre docurnents and cl.rirned rights over the property. The Investigating Officcr rnercly based upon the affidavit ltled by the retircd Tahasildar, deleted the oflences trnder Sections 468 and 47 I of the IPC, respondcnt No.2 is entitled to put-forth his grier''ance zrbout applicability of above said offences againsl thc petitioners at the time of framing of charges. Hence, the petitioncrs are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, based upon thc grounds which are pleaded in the present crirninal petition. Whether the petitioners have cornrnitted the offences with a dishonest intention frorn the date of inccption or not, is a disputed question of fact and the sarne has to be revealed after full-fledged trial only and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage basing r.rpon the disputed lacts.

5.7. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the following judgrnents: \ -\ i0

1. State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Vardes an rl

2. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of U.P. and a not he16.

6. Leirrned Assistant Public ProsecLrtc'r reitcratcd the submissior-rs made by learned counsel lor l'csponderrt No.2. Analvsis: 7. H:rving considered the rival submissions maclc by 1[3 rcspcctivc parlie s and after perusal of tlre matcrial rrvailable on record, it reveals that the petitioners zrre claimir-rg rights over tlle propcrty to an extent of Ac )6.OO g.ts., and Ac.1O.OO gts. covered by Sy.No.1OO7 of Kaitalapur Viliagc, Kukatp:rl)y, Ranga Reddy District, basing upon the un- registercci salc deed da.ted 12.O5. 1983. Accordirrg to thc petition ers, the said sada sale deed was validate d by the revenlr(j zruthorities exercising the powers confcrrcd uncler RoR Act and their names were mutate,l in the revenue re cords and pattadar passbooks were issr-rcd. Wh<:rcas, the clairn oI respondent No.2, who is a Secretary of Bha6lyzrnagar Co-operative Housing Society Lirnited, is that Bhagy:rnagar Co-operative Hosing Society Limited had purclrased the land admeasuring Ac. 167.OO gts. in Sy. 1OO7 s (2014) J_scc 659 r, 20:12 Sup,tmc (All) 1501 7 situated at Kukatpally Viilage, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, through registered sale deeds vide document No.8985 ol 199 1,8824 of 1994,2c47 ctf 1996 and 162l oi 2O2l and the said Society devclopcd the subject land inlc> residential plots and obtaincd layout lrom GHMC and thc said Society has allotted the residcntial plots to its members and executcd registcred sale clcccls in thcir fa".our and also the said Society purchased the laind admeasuring Ac.7O.OO gts. in part of Sy.No. 1OO7 through rcgistered salc cleed bearing document No.2548 of 1aa6 and lancl admeasu.ring Ac.22.OO gts.. The petitioners, without Lraving any manner of right in respect of the suit schedule propcrty of Bhagpanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limitcd and its rnernbers, based upon the forgcd and fabricatcd docurnents, clairning the rights Lo an extcnt Ac.36.OO gts. in Sy.No.lOO7 and filed a suit in O.S.No. L457 of 2OO9 on the ftie of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, for grant of perpetual injr..nction. After receiving summons in the said suit, respondent No.2 and members of Bhagranagar Co-operative Housing Society Lirnited carne to know that the petitioners based r.rpon fabricated and forged documents hled suit and claiming rights over the property. t2

8. Tl-re specilic case of responcient No.2 is that the rlocurnr:nls rvhich are relied upon by thc petiti()ncrs il r!' lirrscd zrnii [:lbr-iczrtecl onc and that the revenuc autl'roritics, :tltcr clut' r, r:rific:ation, informed that the rer;ords l)e1'talining to the RoR proceeclings, mr.rtation proceedirrgs ancl pitttadar passtrool.:s, u,hich werc claimed by thc pet itioners, are not rrvailahlc irr t ht: Mandal Revcnue Office. Tl'.,i rccord furthcr cliscloscs that the Deputy Coilector irlrcl Tah:rsilclar. Balernagi'rr Marndai in his letter No.B/aa2/20lO datccl

23.O1.2O I (), l-rad informed tl-rat the pattadar passi>ooks a.r nd titlc deerl rrr-rc1 I B proceedings are not issued in fervour of the petitioncrs or to any other person in rcspcct of Survcy No.l OO7 or rviti-r its sub divisions.

9. Thr,' r ccord furthcr reveals that one B. Jayaraj, rvho is a retirecl Manclal Revenue Officer, filed an affidavit belore the J()int Collector, Ranga Reddv District, REV.No.D5/737 I /2OIO dated O3.O3.2012, stating that thc mutation proceedings have been issued on 30.1 1.199O in the name of ttre petitioners in respect of the subject propert).. Basing on the said affidavit, the Investigating Officer <:lelcted the offences under Sections 468 and 47 I ol rhe IPC zrrrd filed a charge sheet for tire oflencc under 13 Section 42O of the IPC. The record further reveals that the said rctired officer was not shown as a witness and hc was cxermined by the Investigating ollicer and Lris staterncnt was also not recorded under Section 161 of Lhe Cr.P.C.

10. In Ashok Kumar Jain supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has obscrved that in order to attract Sections 415 and 42O ot the IPC there rnust be a fraudulent or dishonest inrlucemcnt by the accused, causing the person cheated Lo dcliver property or act/ornit sornething to their detrirnent, and the accused rnr.st have had a diskronest intention at time of inducernent. As held in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha SeetharatnT, the essential elcmcnts of cheating include both dishonesty and resultant harm or risk of harm to the victim, while AM Mohan v. Statee errrphasizes that for Section 42O IPC, thc FIR rnust clearly show the inducernent, deception, and dishonest inten tion.

11. In Delhi Race Club (19401 Ltd supra, the Hon'lclc Suprerrre court has stated that the cornplaint does not disclose the essentia,l ingredients of cLreating or criminal breach of trust. An allegation of crirninal breacLi of trust ' i2019) t6 scc 739 '3 zo*1 scc onLine sc 339 .I 1 a l I i l4 under Se,:lion 4O5 IPC cannot automaljcally support a cl'rarge ol cheating undcr Section 415 IPC. as both oflcnces rccluirc rlistrrrcl elcrnents and mens rea. Not every act of brench ()f t rust constitlrtcs a crirninal offencc; while a civil \r/rong rn;.,,-y cxist giving rise to a civil r-cmcd1., criminzrl Iiability arises only rvhen there is evidence of lraudulcnt or clishoncst misappropriation. Cheating, in particr.rlar, requires dishonest intention lrorn thc very inception of the l-ransaction. [n ccntrast, crirrrinal b[each of trust. occurs when zr pcrson lawfully receives movable property but sr.rbscqucrLtly reterins ol' converts it dishonestly. Whether an act amounts to criminal breach of trust or oniy civil liabilit1, depcncls on thc spccific lacts and the intention ol the party i r-r each r:a se-

12. In JIT Vinayak Arolkar supra, ttre Hon'b1c Supreme cor.rrt hcld thert lhc purchascrs under the sale deeds have nol made any grievance about the deeds. As held in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihare, a cornplaint of cheating under Section .+ i5 IPC reqr.rires that the complainant be deceived by fraudulent or dishonest inducernent, causing delivery of property or harm. Execution of a sale deed in favour of arr,Qthcr person, without deception or misrepresentation to ' 2025 Sc:C on Line SC 3 I t5 tLre complainant, does not constitl.rtc cheating. A third party who is not the purchaser cannot allege that rhc vendor's act caused harm to them. In thc present czrsc, the appellant has neither executed the sale d-eeds on behalf of the 4th respondent nor purported to transfer the 4th respondcnt's rights; there is no allegation that the appcliant deceived the 4th respondent or caused darnage in boclv, mind, reputation, or property. 13- In MaIa Choudhary supra, the Hon'ble supreme courr held that the cornpiainant to cloak a civil dispute in thc garb of a criminai offence, The FIR alleges that the accltscd appellants agreed to sell plot No. 82 arrd a fer"rrn house lbr Rs. 5,OO,OO,OOO / - and further purportedly promised to procure an adjoining plot thror..rgh personal influence. However, the civil suit filed by the complainant later alleges a tot€rl consideration of Rs. 5,75,OO,OOO/- based on Rs. 1,15,OOO/- per sqr.rare yard, and rnakes no reference to any promise regarding the neighbouring plot, revealing a clcar clistortion of facts. The registration of the FIR has, Lherefore, been manipulated to misuse the crirninal machincry, resulting in the arrest and custodial hurniliation of appellant No. 1, a 7O-year-old lady. Irrom 1,6 c\/('lr tlr aclnr itted allcgatir)ns. no cogni;:abie ofler-rce is cliscloscr l. arrcl thc cornplainilnt shoulcl hzr',,c been clirccteci to sc-e li r'( rr-rc(iv in a cir.il court. During thc he aring, thc irppclla:rts ofltrr:cl to rctLlrn the: lnnds trar-.sfcrred thror-rgh varlid bir:,1<ing i:hatrncls, rvhiclr the complarnarnt rcfused. In the cir-cun- st:1n(:cs, this is a fit case lor ir-nposir-rg exemplary cosLs ()r r t1'rc rromplzrinant lirr misusing thc proccss of clirniir:rl l.l\\' to Ilurstle ar rnattcr of purcly ci,.'il nzrture.

14. ()n r:arcful consideration, this Court finds that the judgmcrrts relicd upon by thc learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is clearly distinguishable on facts and does not comc' to their aid. In thc decisions cil.ed, the Hon'lcle Apex Corrrt fotrnd no fraudulent inducement or dishonest intention at thc inception of thc transaction. In the present case, thcrc are specific allegations against the petitioners that thcv crcated fabricated documents rvith a dishonest intcntiorr t o clairn over the property, though they are not having el rl\/ manrrer of right over the st-rbject property and basing or-r the said fabricated documents, hled civil suit in O.S. No. 1457 of 2OO9 and secured ad-interim injunction, which w'.rs Iatcr vacated and confirmed in C.M.A. No.45 of 2013 orr 09.O3.2017. The said allegations pima facie ,/ l7 discloses deception and dishonest intention frorn the verlr inception, thereby attracting the ingredients of Scctions 415 arrd 42O IPC or not. Whether the petitioners have in l-act deccived responclent No.2 or committed the offence r-rnder Section 42O IPC or not, tl-rat can oniy be determined in a full-fledged trial. The contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel lor the petitioners relate to dispr-rted qucstions of fact, wl-rich cannot be adjudicated in the present criminal pctition.

15. In Girish Radhakrishnan Varde supra, tlle Hon'ble erpext court held that section i90(1) CrPC provides three ways in which a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence: (a) on a complaint, (b) on a police report, or (c) on inlormation or suspicion from any other person. When cognizance is taken on a cornplaint, the Magistrate may conduct an cnquiry under Sections l9O/2OOl2O2 CrPC and decide wtrether the offence is made out, adding or deleting sections as appropriate. In contrast, when a case arises lrom a police report/ FIR under Section 154 CrPC, the investigation is conducted by police Lrnder Chapter XII CrPC, and the charge-sheet subrnitted to the Magistrate. In such FIR-based cases, the Magistrate does not have t ,'/ l8 authorltJ' to add or remo\rc sections at tlre pre-cognizancr-' stagc; th( correctness of sections trncl fra rning of ,:harge is determinc cl onlv bv tl-rc triarl court at thc ..<tage of framing o[ charges iindcr Sectior-rs 211. 2I6, 218 or St:ction 228 Cr.P.(1. -r'he Cc,qp1 crnyrhasized thzrL conflating thc proccclLrre :r lor complaint cases :rnd I.-lR'basecl cases is incorrcct :rnd conlrary t() the CrPC. A<:cor-ciingly, in a police rcport-bascd casc, Lhc prosecution rnay scck addition of sr:c:tior-rs itl thc lrarning of charge stage, r,1rile Lhc accused rrrarlr obj(-ct to particular chargcs. 'lhc tr ial court must c<;nsider tlrcse pleas based on the FIR and material collcctcd during i nvestigatior-r. The Court clirrihed that this procedurzrl clistinctior-r preserves thc proit,:r exercise of judiciai <liscrction ancl t:nsures fairnes-.; in criminal proceedinrls.

16. In Gayatri Prasad Prajapati supra, thc Allahabad High court has stiitcd that the stagc o[ framing of charge, the trial court is; not restricted by the ordcr clf cognizance. While cogniz.rnce involves forming a prima facie opinion about the ccmmission of an offence based on available rnaterial, the court is not required to examine the evidence in depth, n()r is the accused heard at this stage. \/, 1q Sr-rbsequent charge-shcets may inciude additional evidence, such as forensic reports or witness staternents, which were not part of the original charge-sheet. The trial court rnust consider the entire material on record at the framing of chargc stagc to determinc whether it raises a strong suspicion against Lhe accuscd for cornrnission of other offences not initially cognized. The accused is always afforded an opportunity at the framing of charge to seek dischargc or challcnge particular charges. Therefore, if on considering the completc matcrial, the trial court finds that olfences not initially cognized, stlch as Sections 42O, 465, 468,47L,2O3 lPC, are prima facie made out, framing of charges for such olfcnces is legally perrnissible and does not constitrlte arn error of law or jr.rrisdiction.

17. After duc con sidcratior-r, this Court finds that the judgmcnts relied upon Lry the learned counsel for respondent No.2 are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case on frand, the police filed final report against the petitioners for the offence under Section 42O of the IPC witlr speci{ic accusations. As Lreld in the cited decisions, in cases arising from a police report, tkre trial court is empowered to ./ 20 consider addition or delt':tion of offences at the stage of framing of charges and that sterge 1-ras not v(lt r<:actrcd. lA. [t is already statecl supra, the petitioners have filed simplc suit for perpetuzrl in.;unction beiorc the learned Pnr-icrl>al lienior Civil J uclge, Kukatpally. alr-r cl ter-nporary injunction was disrnisscd by the serid Cour t. Aggrieved by thc samc, the pctitioners l-rave hlecl C.M.A.No.4S of 2013 and tlre srrid appeal was :llso dismissed ancl it is trite lau. lhat ntere pendcrrcy of ci','il CAS(JS is not:r ground to seek qu;rshing ol ll-rc crimin:rl proceedings. br>th arc dillcrcnt and distin,:tive.

19. It is very much rclcrrant to menlion that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar w. The State of Maharashtra 6a Ors.10, tLre Hon'bie Apex Court held that the inherent powcrs urLder Section 482 Cr.P.C. has t<; be cxercised in cxceptional cases sparingly, u.ith caution. only to prevent abusc of process or to secLrrc the ends r>f justice; and it cannot bc invoked to u,eigh cvidcnce or stille a genuine prosecution, but rnay be applied wherc ttre allegations in the compl:eint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand is not the " ( 2019 \1.1 scc 350 21 I rarest of rare cascs to exercisc powcrs of this Court under Section 4a2 of Cr. P. C. to quash the proceeclings C.C.No.81 i ol'20 14

20. Iior the ftireg<;ing rcasoits, this Court does not find any gror-rnd to quash tl-rc proccedings in C.C.No.81 1 of 2014 the filc of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate , Kukatpaliy, Ranga Rcddy [)istrict.

21. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissecl I{owever, taking into consideration t}rc peculiar facts and circumstanccs of the casc, the presencc of the pctitioners in C.C.No.81 1 of 2O\4 is dispcnsed with, unlcss thcir presence is speciliczrlly rcquired subjcct to the condition that the petitioners shall rcprescnt tl-rrough their counscl on each and evcry date of hearing. In case ol non- appearance of the petitioncrs on the specific date so hxed by the trial Court lor thcir appearance, thc trial Court is entitled to procecd u,ith the rnatter, in accordance with law. It is needless to obscrve that any of the observations rnade in this order are onl-y for the purpose of deciding this case and the trial Court shall dccide the matter basing upon the evidence, which is going to be adduced by either of the L 22 parties, in zrccordance with lau' Miscr'llaneous applicatiol-rs, pendinr: if an5z, st-rali st a nrl r:loscd //TRUE COPY// S:I/. MOMINA MEHAR I[]TANT REGISTRAR T{ OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao (For his Lordships kind perusal) To, 1 The XXV Melropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy Distrrct.

2. The IX lvlelr(,politan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabao. 3. The SHO lvladhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, Telangana. 4. 11 L.R.Copie,s. 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, tvlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings. Hyderabad. 7 One CC to SRI BHAVANI SANKAR N, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 9. Two CD Copies \qr { re '-iA \1Ili ii,; .:ib- (e.ssA) rlI HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 ORDER CRLP.No.471',t of 2016 DISMISSING'THE CRLP. ,qto