The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 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 record and quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 214 of 2022 on the file of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira, Khammam District against the Petitioner/Accused No. 3. LA. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandur+.of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C. C. No. 214 ot 2022 on the file of court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira, Khamam District against the petitioner/accused' No. 3 herein for the offences u/s. 294- 8,420, 468 rlw 34 lPC, including appearance of the Petitioner pending disposal of the present quash petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Smt. Mohammad Karishma @ Nagandla Keerthana, Wo Nagandla Naresh, D/o. Nagulmeeruddin, Age 28 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H. No. 11- 14- 12711, Ftst Floor, Srinagar, Shirish Road, Near DVM College, LB Nagar, R. R. District - 500 074. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2 ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Darga. Bee lVlohammed, Wo Nagulmeeruddin, Aged about 46 years, Occ Housewife, R/o Stege pinapJka Village, Wyra wlandal, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENT/DEFDACTO. COMPLAINANT Petition under section 492 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition,the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders grahted in rA No 01 of 2024 dated 1oro3/2ozs. This petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri ANGoTHU NEHRU ,Advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant pubric prosecutor (TG) on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri ponnam Mahesh Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15692 of 2o24 ORDER: ThisCriminalPetitionisfrledseekingtoquashtheproceedings against the petitioner/ accused No'3 in C'C'No'214 of 2022 on the file ofthelearnedJudicialFirstClassMagistrateatMadhira,Khammam District,registeredfortheoffencespunishableunderSections294-8, 42o,46SreadwithSection34oftheIndianPenalCode,1860(for short 1PCJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a private complaint before the trial Court stating that she was a resident of Stage Pinapaka Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District' and resided in House No. 5-11O/A' She alleged that accused No'1' who also resided in the same village and was running unauthorized chitsforalongtime,haddevelopedanintimaterelationshipwithher. According to the complainant, at the request of accused No' 1 and under the influence of accused Nos.2 to 4, she was compelled to join two chit schemes operatbd by accused No' 1, each worth Rs 2,50'0OO/- ,intheyear2ol4.Sheclaimedtohavereceivedthechitamountbut stated that during the process of repaying it under persistent demands and pressure from accused No'l, she executed a sada sale l** - - "-' .-!! 2 sKs,.' Crl.P. o.15692 of2O2.. agreement for her house and plot bearing No. 5-110/A. As addilional security, she handed over eight blank promissory notes and eight blank cheques belonging to her of State Bank of Hyderabad account, Thallada Branch and further stated that at the time of entering the sal'e agreement, she also obtained an undertaking from accused No.1, whereby it was agreed that upon completion of the chits and full repayment, accused No.1 would cancel the earlier agreement and return the promissory notes and cheques. She claimed that she paid the chit amounts regularly and cleared the entire amount by 20-11- 2Ol7, receiving a receipt in confirmation. However, when she requested the return of the documents, accused No.1 allegedly ignored her requests, stating that the documents were in a bank locker and would be returned soon. Despite repeated follow-ups, accused No. 1 lailed to retr-rrn the documents, giving various excuses and allegedly developing enmity with the complainant when she informed village elders of the situation. The complainant later discovered that on O3-O7-2O75, accused No. 1, in criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 4, had fabricated a sale agreement in the name of accused No.3 by misusing the original security document dated 1O- O1-2O14. She stated that accused No.2 was her husband and accused Nos.3 and 4 were her daughters, with whom she had strained relations. Accused No.5 was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, K.G. Siripuram Village. 3 SKS,J Crl-P.No.15692 of 2024

3. The complainant further stated that without returning the documents as promised by the accused No.l and in violation of undersLanding document, the accused Nos.l to 5 in collusion u'ith each other and also criminal conspiracy, hatched a plan and illegally and also without knowledge and consent of the complainant, €lot created a sada sale agreement in the name of accused No.3 in Gram Panchayat records, allegedly to harass her and cause her financial loss. Upon knowing the same through villagers, the complainant confrontcd the accused persons, who allegedly threalened her with dire consequences and used abusive language. She reported the matter to the Station House Officer at Wyra, but no action was taken due to the alleged influence of the accused. On 20-05-202O, she submitted a formal representation to the Hon'ble Collector, District Panchayat Ofhcer, CEO 2.P., and Mandal Parishad Development Oflicer, Khammam, seeking intervention. She later alleged thal in Novembcr 2020, accused Nos.2 to 4, with support from accused Nos.1 and 5, attacked her with an intention to kill. Following the attack, she filed a complaint leading to the registration o[ Crime No.273l2O2O, which was reportedly covered by both print and electronic media. Despite submitting complaints to the Wyra Police, she stated that no substantial action was taken. Therefore, she approached the trial Court, seeking legal action againsl the accused under Sections 294-8,42O,468 read with Section 34 of IPC, alleging 4 SKS,J Ctl.P.No.15692 of 2024 cheating acts, criminal conspiracy, forgery of documents and also entering the name o[ accused No.3 by accused No.S by misusing the power as Panchayat Secretary. Aggrieved thereby, thc petitioner hled the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri Angothu Nehru, learned counsel for the petitioner as rvell as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosccutor appearing on behaif of respondent No. I - State and Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de_facto complainant had no locus standi to lodge the complarnt, as she had alienated the properL], in question in favour of accused No. 1 through a simple sale deed executed in the year 2014. pursuant to the said transaction, accused No.l had her name entered jn the records maintained by accused No.5, who serves as the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and further submitted that subsequently, accused No.l sold the propertv to the petitioner uio another simple sa-1e deed in the year 2015, following which the petitioner's name was also entered in the official records ol accused No.5. This fact was well within the knor.r,ledge of respondent No.2. Therefore, according to the - 5 SKS,J C .P.No-15692 of 2024 petitioner's counsel, no ingredients of cheating or forgery are present in C.C.No.2 I 4 of 2022. The allegations do not attract any offence punishabie under Sectio n 294-8 of IPC' There is no element of cheating involved in the petitioner's purchase of the aforementioned house property from accused No. 1, nor has there been any forgery of respondent No.2's signature on any document including the simple sale deed executed in favour of accused No'1' Therefore' he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the aliegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, which requires trial. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against her does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal Petition. T.LearnedcounselforrespondentNo.2frledcounterdenyingthe petition averments stating that the complaint arises from a serious and deliberate act comrqitted by the accused, including the petitioner' The allegations contended are specific and substantiated by documentary evidence, including the misuse of a sada sale agreement dated 1O.O4.2O14. Despite the existence of a written undertaking 6 Crl.P-No. 15692 of 2O2.: sKs,.'- . given by accused No.l, wherein she had agreed to return the house property upon repayment of the chit amounts, the said property was allegedly sold fraudulentry and further submitted that the property was alienated by misusing a document that had been given soleiy as security for the chit transaction, at a time when the d.e_facto complainant was hospitalized. He emphasized that the petitioner subsequently executed a written agreement to return the propert5r, which further evidences her knowredge of, and part.icipation in, the alleged offence and he acknowredged that the police had initially closed the complaint by treating the matter as civil in nature. However, he submitted that such closure does not bar the complainant from pursuing a private complaint, particularly in light of the police's failure to appreciate the criminal aspects involved.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner resided in Hyderabad post 2o2o does not preclude her involvement in the prior fraudulen t transactions, which are the subject matter of the charge sheet and stated that although the petitioner claims to have rawfu[y purchased the propertSr in 20 15 through a simple sale deed, the legitimacy of such purchase remains a matter for adjudication during triar. Additionally, the respondent has filed a civil suit in o.s.No.147 of 2022 seeking a cleclaration that he is the absolute owner of house bearing No.5-110/A, and further ",/ -7 7 SKS'J c;tl.P.No.l5692 of 2024 seeking to declare the agreement of sale dated 04-O1'2014 executed in favourofaccusedNo'lasinvalid,alongwithrectificationofthe records maintained by the Gram Panchayat and further contended that the pendency of the said civil suit does not render tJle present criminal case infructuous, as both are distinct and independent proceedings. To substantiate his contentions' he relied upon the judgments of the Honble Apex Court in R'P'Kapur Vs' Sate of Punjabr, Sankar Biswas ard Others Vs' State of Slest Bengal and Anr.2, Para'njeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakahan and Ors'3' Usha Chakraborty and Anr. Vs' State of West Bengal and Anr'a and Naresh Kumar & Anr' Vs' The State of Karnataka & Anr' s ' Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition' In the iight of the submissions made by both the parties and g. upon perusal of the material available on record' it is observed that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No'3 in the present criminal proceedings. The primary allegation against her is that she fraudulently purchased the property from accused No' 1 with knowledge that the de-facto complainant had executed a sada sale deed in favour of Accused No'l as security towards the prized chit 11960scconLinesc21 ' 2022 SCC OnLine cal 4305 ' (zot:) tt scc 6za o (zozg) ts scc rgs t 2o2a trusc 196 1 \ sKs,.! Crl.P.No.I5692 of 2O2..' 1 \ amount and further alieged that although accused No.l had received the fuli chit subscription amount, she nevertheless transferred the property to accused No.3 fraudulentiy and that the sada sale deed in favour of accused No. 1 was executed in the year 2014, while the petitioner, accused No.3, became the purchaser of the propert5r in 2015. No specific averments have been made to substartiate the offence of cheating as defined under relevant provisions of law against the petitioner. It is also brought to the attention of the court that a civil suit in O.S.No. 147 of 2022 is pending before the competent Civil Court with respect to the same subject property and that the petitioner was a minor at the time of purchase. However, no documentary evidence has been fiied to substantiate this claim. Moreover, according to ttre d,e_facto complainant, the petitioner.who was subsequent purchaser was a minor as on 1O.OI.ZOf 4 when the sada sale deed was allegedly obtained by accused No. 1 from LW. 1. The said document was tf,rereafter transferred to the petitioner on O3.O7.2OlS. Considering these facts, there appears to be no sufficient material to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner. As the petitioner is only a subsequent purchaser, and in the absence bf clear allegations and supporting evidence of cheating or criminal intent attributable to her, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the same are liable to be quashed. 9 SKS,J ci.P.No.15692 of 2024

10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in in C'C'No'214 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira, Khammam District, are herebY quashed' Miscellaneous petitions, pending' if any' shall stand closed' SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Madhira, Khammam District. 2. fhe Station House Officer, Wyra Police Station, Khammam. 3. One CC to SRl. ANGOTHU NEHRU Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. Ponna Mahesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the ASSTSTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies TUPSL l 1i t) o * :1 TllE s f4 16 2 g AU6 2025 D n | ()t\( HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/202S ORDER CRLP.No.15692 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. w