The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana Through SHO, Medipally Police station, Rachakonda

2. Smt Shyamala Baskar, W/o Late B Murali age.63 years Occ.Housewife R/o H.No 1-1-205l1/B, Viveknagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad ...Respondents/Com plainant 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 Quash the proceedings in CC.No.174 of 2024 on file of the lV Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class Medchal t\/alkajgiri District at Uppal, at LB Nagar against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 8 herern U/Sec. 420, 406, 468,471rlw 34 IPC I.A. N o: 20F 2025 ?_i" ! aoo qoe -it1- Petition under sectron. 5"8 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances ;5t[:lJ:",y{fl":i,f gt c'o,naJo'r?,Lil',i'Fetition re Hrgh court may ;li p e t i ii o ;;;A;; u I" o' *"". jq,!f 1 [ E" I 1,"J,,1?'" ;'r:,,f :;#m l;" Additionat Judrcrar rvlaoistrate^of First Cia;r;;:l;i;rtkaiT .r District at Uppat, ii,." ,i.,'1i6 pun,r rg disposar oi the li"\,? )i,in; Yliui,:";'o This petitron comtno ;;,, ;"j ; ;.:; J:,- ^"","J "r;#."" ffiffi li l; iffiJ.t, :l sri Gadipe prashanth Advocate for the petitioners and ir Jithender Rao Veerama,a, Additionat pubtic prosecu,o, on o"iri, liin" *,,, pondent No i and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER Grounds , "' - - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13172 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short ,BNSS,) by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.174 of 2024 on the file of learned lV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-malkajgiri District at Uppal, at LB Nagar. 2. Heard Mr.Prashanth Gadipe, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No..l-State. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is purely civil in nature and that the petitioners have neither created any documents nor attempted to unlawfully claim the prcperty of the de facto complainant, as alleged. He further submits that the contents of the complaint do not disclose the ingredients necessary to attract the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. lt is contended that the de facto complainant, in an attempt to settle scores in the civil dispute, has filed this false complaint with the intention of implicating the petitioners. He, \ 1 ) therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4.LearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorhassr-rbmittedthat the de facto complainant had purchased the property' and subsequently, accused No 1 unlawfully occupied tt e same' This ledtothefilingofacivilsuitbythedefactocompainant'which was decreed in her favour. Pursuant to the decretr an Execution Petition was filed, and through the process of the Court' possessionwasdeliveredtothedefactocomplainant.Thereafter, theaccusedallegedlycreatedfakedocument:;andinitiated further litigation concerning the subject property He, therefore' submitted that there is an element of criminality irvolved in the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the petitior

5. Perused the record 6. The learned petitioners counsel has relied .rron a decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and othets v' Bhaianlal and othersl . ln the said case, the Apex Court t ad elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482C' PC/Anide 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashirt':1 the criminal proceedings. ln para 102, the Apex Court enrl nerated seven ' tg9: ,6pp( t) sunrcrnc Courl Cascs li5 -., 3 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as follows:- "102. ln the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, iustifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 1 55(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section '155(2) of the Code. I 4 t. (5) Where the allegations made in the FlF. :tr complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on t 1 ,) basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a lus,t conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceerlr rg against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar e I .lrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act tx rncerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) o the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/o. where there is a specific provision in the Code or tie Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the 5lrievance of the aggrieved Party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifes ly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedirg is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreakir q vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him ch e to plivate and personal grudge."

7. lt was also held in the said case that ;xrwer of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised ver,/ sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the raresl cf rare cases. The e).traordinary or inherent powers do not ::nfer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to t,; whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking uF( n an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of t r -, allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. g. The learned counsel also relied upor a decision of this High Court in Gampa Krishnamurthy v. Slrrte of Telangana 5 and anothef, wherein this Court has expressed its disapproval for impafting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety. By observing so, the criminal proceedings were quashed in the said case q- The contents of the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet do point out the offences under Sections 420, 406, 4*, and 471 rlw. 34 of the lPC. The allegations specifically point out that a fake document was created, portraying rights over the subject property. Though the petitioners' counsel contends that the matter is purely civil in nature and that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained, in such cases, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddf , it is held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to I quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. t 2ozi ( t ) nro (c.I. ) 4lo (1s) r 2025 t.iveLa\t (SC) 7 tl \=*'1 \l - 10 ln the present case, there is a specific alle,J ation that a document was forged and used to create rights ove'1ihe property. Hence, there are no merits in the petition. Howe\/( )r, it is seen from the record that C.C. No. 174 of 2024 is pendinry on the file of the learned lV Additional Judicial Magistrate o' First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Uppal, at LB Nagar '[.rerefore, Court deems it appropriate to dispense with the pre sence of the petitioners before the trial Court. t^ 1l Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposec :f dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial rlourt provided that they are represented by a counsel before the rial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before t e trial Court whenever their presence is required during the cours e of trial. Pending miscellaneous applications, if an 7 shall stand closed. o.., u.too,{flJHfffiH 6 //TRUE COPY// ISECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 b The lll Metropolrtan Magistrate Court. LB Nagar The Station House Offi&r Medtpally pot,"" iGtion, Rac.r rkonda l[:i:;^: Pubrrc Prosecutor, Hish'court roiin" sirt" .i reransana at 9n" 99 to sri Caltpe prashanth. Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Cop jes l[Jur:8:l ""'l Judicial Masistrate First ctass tvedch r rvlarkajsiri District, c9 K/I'SI, it. HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER CRLP.No.13172 of 2025 a\r, I t ,',4L. .9. 5; + i-1 ,i I 'JLL TL ,9 H 9l + OISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION \