The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1le N4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume I s of Sri T NATRAJ, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of Respondent No.1. and Sri. T Pradyumna Kumar Reddy (Sr. Counsel) Representing Sn D.R. Hari Prasztr Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13126 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.25B of 2022 of Nandigama Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 385, 420,504 and 506 read with 34 LP.C

2. Heard Sri T Natraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.'l -State and Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.R. Hari Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not in lndia on the alleged date of offence and that he is facing false allegations in this case. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the Charge Sheet and is shown to be absconding and thus, he has challenged the F.l.R., wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has extorted money from respondent No.2-de facfo complainant, which is totally false. He further submitted that there is a civil \ FII) I Llrl Ir No.lll26 o12025 dispute pending between the parties. He furthe . submitted that 2 during pendency of the ctvil proceedrngs. init i tion of criminal proceedings is not just and proper. He, therr iore, prayed to quash the proceedings rn the present crime aga r st the petitioner herein 4 Learned Additional Public prosecutor subrr tted that during the course of investigation the police could gather nformation that the petitioner, who is the son of accused No.2, ; long with other family members approached the de f acto c r mplainant and demanded money from htm on several occasrorr:, and that the de facfo complainant has complied with the same t\^,i ;e or thrice and subsequently, when the de facto complainant he s not complied with the same, the petitioner and others have thrr: rtened him with dire consequences. He further submitted that .t e name of the petitioner is referred to in the charge shee , but as his whereabouts are not traced out, he is shown to L,t absconding in the charge sheet. He, therefore, prayed to disnri ;s the Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for rr:;pondent No.2 has submitted that there is a long drawn civil litir ation between J ETD,J (l.l.l' No. li 126 of 2025 the parties and that A.S.No.52 of 2O2O filed by accused No.'l and C.l\4.A.Nos.20 of 2023 and 23 of 2023 filed by accused No.3 and accused No.1 , respectively, are pending before this Court. He further submitted that Crl.P.No 10B35 of 2022 filed by accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in the present crime was disposed of on 03.04 2023 granting liberty to accused No.1 to question the charge sheet; Crl.P Nos.12961 , 12995 and 'l 2999 of 2025 filed by accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.304 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, are dismissed as withdrawn on 08.10.2025; and that Crl.P.Nos.107 1 of 2024 and 13127 of ZOZS filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in the said C.C No 304 of 2023 are still pending. He further submitted that the petitioner is shown to be absconding in the charge sheet, as his whereabouts are not known. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Crrminal Petition.

6. Perused the record

7. The petitioner herein is accused No.5. The allegations in the compliant are that the de facfo complainant purchased land from one N. Shanker Reddy for the purpose c 4 I]TD.J l3 I26 01 102 5 ( rl l'] ^-o. f establishing a company and subsequently, the son of N ihanker Reddy i.e., N. Purushotham Reddy, accused No.1 h: ein, along with other family members demanded money fror the de faclo complainant due to the increase in the land rat: ; They bore a sore eye on the expansion of the business r f the de facto complainant. That the de facto complainant eeded to their demands on two occasions, but it has becom: a habit to the petitioner and his family members to extort mone y from him and thus, he refused to pay the amount. Thereaft,: , the petrtioner along with accused No 1 and others came tc his premises, demanded amounts and when the de faclo con 1 laina nt refused to pay the same, they threatened him with drre consequences. Thus, the recitals of charge sheet and the comple nt do point out specific allegations against the petitioner herein )etitioner is the son of accused No.2 and charge sheet is not yet Ii :d against hrm. but it is mentioned in the charge sheet that accu with his family members have threatened ed No.1 along lhe de facto complainant. Petitioner's counsel contends thzr the petitioner was not in lndia on the alleged date of incident zr d that he is in U.S.A. at the relevant point of time. Alibi is not a r; ound to quash i:HryZ -4 ETD.J tlrl P.No. l.l I26 o1 202i the proceedings. The petitioner's counsel contends that during the pendency of civil proceedings, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated. But, in the present case, the prtme allegation refers to extortion which involves an elenrent of criminality. ln Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddyl, it was held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same sublect matter involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. ln the light of the said decision and in view of the above held discussion, it is opined that, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner Hence, the Criminal Petition lacks merit. B. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class AT HYDERABAD Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The SHO Nandigama Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 3. One CC to SRl. T NATRAJ, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. D.R. HARI PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two Copies to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 CRLP.No.13126 of 202 1ts14 6s ,S s= !+ q o( o i.l. (- i!i i H t l L :r CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISMISSED. i I I I I I I I i I t i I I \l!