The High Court · 2025

2. Madhava Reddy Mothe, S/o. Madhusudhan Reddy Mothe, Age. about 57 vears, Occ. Busrness, R/o H. No. Plot Nos. 26 and 27 , Flat No.401, Sri lJivasam apartments, Seva Mandal Society. East Marredpally, Secunderabad - 500026 ..RESPONDENT NO.1 ..,RESPONDENT NO.2 /DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 call for the records in FIR N0.626 ot 2025 dated 05.06 2025 registered by P.S. Rajendranagar and quash the same against the Petitioner/Accused No.4. l.A. NO:2OF 2025 Petitron 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 grant Stay of all further proceedlngs including the arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein in relation to FIR No. 626 of 2025 dated O5lOGl2025 registered by P.S. Rajendranagar, 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 Sri B.Pavan' Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional ".ry Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana, l-' derabad on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/ State, The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14113 oF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against hrm in Crime No.626 of 2025 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 329(3) 324(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for sho(,'BNS')

2. Heard Sri B. Pavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the original owner of the subject property and that by virtue of the said GPA, he has executed the Sale Deed, but respondenl No.2- de facto complainant has falsely filed the present complaint against him alleging forgery, which is not maintainable. He fur$er submitted that the civil dispute is given a criminal colour, which is not just and proper and is against the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Mohammed lbrahim and 2 I] ID,J ( I P No.l,1lll o12025 others v. State of Bihar and anotherl. He, thertr:re, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime again; the petitioner h erein 4 . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor sub r itted that the origrnal owner of the subject property is one B. Per aiah @ Penta Reddy, but one B. Papi Reddy and B. Sathi Red<l ', who are the brothers of said Penta Reddy, without there bein(l any right over the subject property. have executed an agreemer: of sale-cum- GPA in favour of one Prakash Chand Jain an<l the petitioner herern and by invoking the said GPA, the petiticr er herein and Prakash Chand Jain have executed Sale Deec in favour of Mohammed Asifuddin and Shabad Tajuddin. Th-;, without any right, the said documents have been fraudulr: rtly executed Therefore, there is criminal element in this case e rd hence, the remedy lies in the criminal Court and the preser t complaint is very much maintainable. He, therefore, prayed o dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record ' 1zoo9; s scc ls t E'ID,J Crl.P.No.l4l ll of2025 lt is borne out by record that one penta Reddy is the owner J

6. of land in survey No.14g and converted the rand into residentiar plots and sold to several people, who in turn sold the property to It/rs. Ayesha lVlahjabeen, through whom the de facto complainant has purchased the subject property. lt is alleged that.one B. Sathi Reddy and B. Papi Reddy fraudulenfly executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.3651 of 2010, dated

24.12.2010, in favour of the petitioner herein and one prakash Chand Jain and based on such forged GpA, they brought into existence registered Sale Deed yrde document No.5B2 of 2025, dated 08.01 .2025, in the names of tVlohammed Asifuddin and Shabad Tajuddin. Therefore, alleging that the said Sale Deed is fictitious document got fraudulenfly executed, the present complaint is filed. Hence, prima facie case exists against the petitioner herein. ln Mohammed tbrahim's case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, it was held that criminal Courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or pressurizing parties to setfle civil disputes. Thus, the petitioner's counsel contends that criminal proceedings cannot be invoked in this case. But, in the said decision, it was further observed that clvil disputes in some cases may also 4 E fD,J :rl.l'. \o.l4l I3 of202i contain ingredients of criminal offences and such c sputes have to be entertained notwithstanding that they are aisr civil disputes The Honourable Apex Court in Kathyayini v Sidharth P.S. Reddy2, has held that pendency of civil proceedin 1s on the same subject matter involving the same parties is n,t iustification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima fac e case exists against the accused persons. ln the present cil;e, there is an element of forgery pointing out the prima facie c;i se against the petitioner herein and thus, there is no impedrme I in lodging the criminal proceedings. The investigation is still in ; rogress. Truth is yet to be unravelled. Therefore, it is held tlr rt the Criminal Petition lacks merit.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismisse d Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shz I stand closed //TRUE COPYil SD/. T SRINIVASAREDDY A\S I TANT REGISTRAR -'1 ]ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Xl Additional Judiciat Magistrate of First Class, Cyb,) abad at Rajedranagar. Rangareddy Di"strict.

2. The Station House Officer, Rajendranagar police Station langareddy District.

3. One CC to Sri. B.pavan, Advocate tOpUCl -t^ls4 Qne CGto the Public prosecutor, High Court for the Stat ) rf Tejangana, Hyderabad IOUT] 5. Two CD Copies. Hr PSI</PSL "r_ - _-__-::-; HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 .:. l, I L ,i EH o a- -t: U J 0It .C -l^ .r:pr11gp5; :::=-=iA ORDER CRLP.No.14113 ot 2025 DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,*A % q- io$r