High Court · 2025

Secreta riat, Hydera ba"d. The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram p.S., Ranga Reddy District. Mr. Sattaiah Golusula. S/o Kishlaiah, aged 27 years, Occ Agriculture, Fyo. Pora nd I a Vi tta ge, tVla h es fr*a ram trrta no a[ "{Jn g-, f, EEo"i o irtri"t. 2 J ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or Direction, particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the 2nd Respondent in registering the F'l R.No. 234 o{ 2016 for the offences under sections 41g,420,447, so6 r.p.c., under section 4 of the A. p.Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, 1988 and under section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, arraigning the petitioner as Accused No. 3, as arbitrary, illegal being a counter blast to the crime registered in F.l.R.No.496 of 2016 for the offences under sections 384, 506 read with section 34 of r.p.c., of Malkajgiri P.S., and consequen,y quash the F.l.R.No. 234 of 2016, since it is violative of Articres 14 and 21 of the constitution of rndia, in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(W PMP. NO: 41712OF 2016 ) Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including -appearance of the Petitioner in Crime/F.l.R.No. 234 of 2016 on the file of the Station House Officer, I\rlaheshwaram P.S., Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, in the.interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 53 OF 2017) Between: Mr. Sattaiah Golusula, S/o. Kishtaiah, aged 27 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT No.3 AND 1 S. Shekar, S/o. Late Istari, aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram Ranga Reddy District. 2 2 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No.1 & 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29-09-2016 granted in W.P.M.P. No. 41712 of 20'16 in W.P.No.3381 1 of 2016. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(V{V MP. NO: 1176 OF 20171 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, lvlaheshwaram Ranga Reddy District. AND 1 S. Shekar, S/o. Late lstari, aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture, Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o ...PETITIONERS 2 [Mr. Sattaiah Golusula, S/o Kishtaiah, aged 27 years, Occ Agriculture, Rj/o. Pora nd I a Vi I I a ge, M a heshwa ra m l,ti"..j, L "n*g, (Eio"v oi.tri"t. (R2 is not necessary party to this petition) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed interim orders passed in wpMp.No.4 1712 oI 2O16 in WP.No.3381 1 of 2016 dated 20.9.20.16. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt K.RAMA KR|SHNA, REp. FOR SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KILARU KHADER BABA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITTON NO.3 38 11 0F 2016 ORDBR.. This writ petition has been liled seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 234 of 2016 on the file of P'S' Maheshwaram' Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3, for offences punishabte under Sections 419,420,447' and 506 ofthe lndian Penal Code, 1860 (lor short'IPC'); Section 4 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1988; and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. When this matter was taken up for hearing on l0'10 2025, Sri K. Rama Krishna, leamed counsel representirlg Sri P' Lakshma Reddy, leamerl counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed bv this Court in W.P. No. 3281 8 of 2016, dated 22-09 '2025, wherein this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 234 of 2016 against the petitioner therein, who was amayed as accused No. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 3 in the very same crime. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted by this Court in W.P. No. 328 l8 of 2016. dated22.09.2025- \.-r\\'-- ,r ..r.. . .l_. .

3. On 10.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No. 3, and the matter was adjourned to today under the caption 'For Orders'. In spite of the matter being listed under the caption 'For Orders', today also there is no representation trn behalf of respondent No. 3 either in physical mode or virtual mode. This Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he acted as a mediator between the de facto complainant and accused No. 2, and this Court has already quashed the crime insofar as accused No. 2 is concemed, against whom the major allegations were levelled. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint is purely civil in nature.

5. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home has not disputed the quashing of the crime insofar as accused No. 2 in W.P. No. 32818 of 2016 is concemed. However, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients under the Arms Act. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation, 3 and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective pafl.ies and after perusal of the material available on record' it rer"cals that accused No'2 is claiming rights ovcr the property admeasuring.Ac.t4-30 guntas in Sy' No 17 and Ac'5-35 guntas in Sy' No.l8, situated at Porandla Viliage' Maheshwaram Mandal' Ranga Re<ldy District, through a rcgistered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1809 ol 2011, dated 13 05'20ll Subsequently' he sotd the said propefty in favour of Sri B' Ravi Teja by way of a registered 'l he petitioner documeut bearing No 353 of 20 t2' dated 02 02'2012' herein acted as a mediator between the de facto complainant and accused No.2' The record flrrther reveals that respondent No'3 loclged a cornplaint against the petitioner and 5 othcrs on 17 09'20 l6' Aftcr perr.rsal of the complaint' it is apparent that respondent No'3 requested rcspondent No'2 to take action against the petitioner and 5 others fbr non-payment of balance sale consideration and to cancel thc registeled Sale Deed bearing Document No'353 ol 2012' dated

02.02.20t2

1. Admittedly the nature of the allegations niade by respondent No.3 in the complaint is purely civil in nature' Even according to the complaint if any amounts are due by accused No.2' respondent No'3 I l ::4:: ought 1rl have approachcd the competcnt Civil Court by filing a comprehensive suit seeking canceilation ol the registered sale deeds dated 13.05.201I and 02.02.2012 respectively. On the other hand, file d criminal complaint.

8. lt is very much relevant to mention that that this Courl allowed W.P. No. 32818 of 2016 and quashed the proceedings against accuscd No.2, against whom, the major eillegations were levellcd. In the Lrresent case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he actcd as a mediator between the de facto complainant and accused No.2. Hence. this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law.

9. For the foregoing reasons, thc writ petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No. 234 of 201 6 on the file of Maheshwaram I'olice Station against the petitioner/accused No.3, is hereby quashed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness rne uon''uiJ'sRi apanesn KUMAR slNGH, The Ghief Justice on this fvf onA"V, ifre Thirteenth Day of October, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' //TRUE COPY// To, 1 . The Secretary, Department of Home, Secreta Telangana. S .P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad, State of

2. The Station House Officer, lVlaheshwaram Ranga Reddy District_ 3. One CC to SRt P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRt KTLARU KHADER BABA, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Tetangana at 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BSR BS ,ltv .-/. HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 CC TODAY '! \ ORDER WP.No.33811 of 2016 ,q-rtr4' \ iAq iE C\ t-) l] 51 ?[?5 -v 1': -i. . _i- / .,,'i' i. -,":-i,l' :' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 0^ 1 \5 lo\#