The High Court · 2025

2. Kallepu Sampath Rao, Aged.48 years S/o. Sri. Srinivas Rao, Orc Farmer Rt/o. Nittur, Nittur Village, Peddapalli, Ramagundam Dist, Telangana. ...RespondenUDe-facto Complai nant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the CC 126 of 2025 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District Court Complex at Peddapalli. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including dispense of appearance of the Accused in CC 126 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District Court Complex at Peddapalli for the alleged offences U/S 318(4), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS till the disposal of the main criminal petition for quash and also dispense the appearance of the Accused in the Trial Cout and pass. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t te Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunt:nts of Sri Srinivas Chama(hy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Jitherrr er Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and nt te appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14826 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.126 of 2025 on the file of Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4)and 351(2) read with 3(5)of BNS.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

3. The case of lhe prosecution is that the petitioner No.1 herein has entered into an agreement of sale with the de facto complainant and has received the sale consideration, but failed to register the said land in favour of lhe de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant questioned the accused, they abused and threatened him with dire consequences

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter is purely of civil nature and the allegations that the petitioners- accused-.Nos.1 and 2 have abused and threatened the de facfo 2 EfD,J Crt P- No.l1a26o12025 complainant is absolutely false. He further submitt: I that there are several contradictions in the statements of witnesr es recorded by the prosecution. Though it is alleged that the agrr-' :ment of sale is entered into with the petitioner No.1 herein, the de ;t cfo complainant has not mentioned any details as to the property. Tl erefore, there is no truth in the allegations. He further submitted tha the date of the agreement of sale is alleged to be 01.0'l .2001 and hat the de facto complainant alleges that on 22.07.2024, he arrange C a panchyat to settle the issue i.e., after 23 years, wherein it was r; ated that the de facfo complainant has purchased the said land 30 '/ )ars ago and he is shown to be 40 years old in the agreement The agreement produced by the de facto complainant is allege< to have been entered into on 22.07.2024, wherein his age is statr: 1 to be 40 years and in the said agreement it is mentioned that he h: s purchased the land 30 years ago in which case, he must have beer 10 years old by the date of the alleged purchase. Thus, it falsifies t^ I case of the de facfo complainant and hence, the continuation of prt ceedings based on false allegations is an abuse of process of la,r and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petiti, ,ners and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Jit Virr ryak Arolkar v. Stat eof Goa and othersl. ' 2025 scc OnLine SC 31 J ETD,J Ctl P. No.r1A26 ot zOE

5. Learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that the contents of the compraint point out the prima facie allegations against the petitioners and that there may be contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, but that can be raised during the course oftrial and that cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.

6. Perused the record

7. A perusal of the complaint points out the allegations against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 31g(4) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and others2 contending that the matter is purely civil in nature and is based on false allegations, thus need to be quashed. lt was held that. "Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the appellant. Moreover, the complaint was frled by the 4'h respondent for the first lime after a time gap of two years from the date of lnstitution of the civil suits. ln such complaint, he suppressed the fact that civil suits were already filed in which apphcations for temporary injunction were made. When there was a dispute over the ti e, the act of 4h respondent of settrng in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of,law " ' m25 ScC Onltne Sc al 4 EfD,J Ctt.P- NoiaA26 oI2025

8. ln the said case civil suits are pending ov': the issue' ln the present case, there are no civil suits pending betrt :en the parties andhence,theciteddecisiondoesnotapplytothepresentcase. The truth or otherwise in the allegations shall be cullt:' I out during the course of trial. The contradictions pointed out b1 the petitioners herein also can be brought out and argued befon: the trial court' However, in the facts and circumstances of the cas:' it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispr> rsing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court'

9. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dispos:d of and the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with before the trial court, provided they are representec ly a counsel on everydateofhearingandtheyshallbepresentbelcr.ethetrialcourt as and when their presence is required during the cl lrse of trial' It/liscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall s land closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. AHM :D ABDULLA KHAN ASii STANT REGISTRAR (\t Aecrrou oFFrcER \ \ To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of F r ;t Class, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District Court Complex at Peddapalli.

2. The Station House Officer, Peddapalli Police Station, R r nagundam District 3. One CC to Sri. Srinivas Chamarthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State r i Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. YJR,DL HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14826 ot 2025 J t,1l 0 I .EB 2026 * o * DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIO N. {)