The High Court · 2025

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 proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No. %9 of 2O23 pending on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial First class Magistrate Shadnagar or the offence under u/s 420, 504,506 lpC against the petitioners, the circumstances mentioned above to meet the ends of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 269 of 2023 pending on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Shadnagar for the offence under u/s 420, SO4, 506 lpC against the petitioners, pending disposal of the main case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing :l e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumert; of Sri Maram Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Vr: ,ramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, tl ,derabad on behalf of the Respondent No.'t /State. The Court made the following: ORDER: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA OEV]EADA CRIMINAL PETIT ION No.144 60 0F 2025 DATE: 31-12-2025 Between: Vanga Shyam Sunder Reddy and another And . Petitioners ... Respondents State of Telangana, Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.269 of 2023 on the fite of tearned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, registered for the offences under Sections 42O,504 and 506 of l.p C

2. Heard Sri t\4. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 _State a : j i iI I

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submittecl 2 E'tD,J P.No 14460 of202i hat there are land disputes pending between the petitioners arr 1 respondent No.2-de facfo complainant; that the petitioners har, : filed a Suit for injunction, which is pending; and that ad interit injunction is granted in their favour and against the de facto cofi plainant. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 has also file< a complaint against the de facto complainant herein and the sarr e is pending. Thus, the de facto complainant has filed the prese rt case as a counter blast to the said case to setfle the scores on :ivil side and to arrive at settlement in the said case. He further s rbmitted that the alleged transaction with regard to the subject lar 1 is 'l 1 years old and that the complaint is lodged with a hugr: delay of 11 years. He, therefore, prayed to quash the procer clings in the present C.C. against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor subrri ted that the contention of delay cannot be a ground to quash th,: proceedings in the present C.C. He further submitted that ilr , allegations levelled against the petitioners are that they cheate: the de facto complainant and further, threatened him with dire c: rsequences. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Cdminal petitio r

5. )erused the record. *-..r.-.Yr.t .rry_.,

6. The allegations in the complaint point out that the de facto J ETD,J Crl.P.No.l4460 of2025 complainant is the absolute owner of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.8-00 in Survey Nos.489/A, 490/4 and 492lA situated at Kishannagar Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed, dated 27.07.2011, from Vanga Prasanna and ever since then, he is in peaceful possession of the same. lt is alleged that subsequenfly, his vendor with a criminal intention sold away the same part of agricultural land to three others, by names, Veeranki Venkateshwarlu, Chilkamarri Lingam and A. Venkat Reddy, and that he learnt about the said transaction while searching for Encumbrance Certificate and when he questioned the same, his vendor Vanga prasanna and her husband, Vanga Shyam Sunder Reddy, and also the subsequent purchasers abused him and threatened him with dire consequences. Thus, the allegations point out the alleged offences under Seciions 420, SO4 and 506 of l.p.C. against the petitioners herein. The contrention of the petitioners' counsel is that the matter is of purely civil in nature But, the allegation of double registration of the land sold to lhe de facto complainant being sold to three other persons subsequenfly would involve a criminal intention and once the criminality exists there would not 4 EI'D.J Ci ' No.14460 o12025 be any bar to institute criminal proceedings. The rer: )rd discloses that the de facto complainant has filed a Suit vrde () S.No.11B of 2022 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, ShaJ with lnterlocutory Application seeking temporar tagar, along ' injunction against petitioner No.2 and others and the said nterlocutory Application was dismissed. The petitioner No.1 has filed a Suit vrde O.S.No.1B of 2023 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, against the de facfo complainant and rnother and has also lodged a complaint yrde Crime No.46C of 2023 of Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for he offences under Sections 447,323 and 504 read with 34 l.p.C. agarnst the de facto complainant and others. Now, the present :omplaint is lodged by the de facto complainant against the petitir: rers herein. Admittedly, there are land disputes between both the 1 arties. The petitioners are facing allegations of double registratior of the land sold to the de facto complainant being sold to three ot rer persons subsequently. Thus, prima facie case is made oul petitioners herein. Since there are serious allegation: is not a ground to quash the proceedings in the trrr against the petitioners herein and the same can I during the course of trial. The truth or otherwise of thr: rgainst the , the delay -"sent C.C. e decided allegations --.:ry':' 5 EI'D,J Crl.P.No.14460 of2025 would also be brought out during the course of trial. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court. 7 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magiskate, Shadnagar, Rangareddy District.

2. The Station House Offlrcer, Shadnagar Police Station, Rangareddy District 3. One CC to Sri Maram Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUTI.

5. Two CD Copies. PSI(BA YY HIGH COURT DATED:3111212025 ORDER CRLP.No.14460 ot 2025 : ::--a ,tai€)^\.;.,.r t 1 ( a) :) 1l ' I 7lllh s r.\( f' I * * o i \() DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITICI { { ^\ r{c': (r. -<i\ Ll. --ry2 tt'