The High Court · 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 all further Proceedings in C.C. No. 885 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the X Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum X Addl. lvletropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Rachakonda, tvledchal District. This Pet tior ),)mtng on for hearing, upon perusirrg the l\ilemorandum of GroundsofCrinrn:]l)etitionanduponhearingtheargunrentsofSriSaiSumed YaSaSwiKondap;lli,t\dvocateforthePetitionerandtheAsst,PullicProsecutor onbehalfofth€Fl€,1]]]ndentNo'landnoneappearedfortheReslrondentNo.2' The Court made thr) following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15710 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No-885 of 2024 on the hle of X-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Rachakonda, Medchal District. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the offences alleged against them are under Sections 4O6 aod,42O r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ.

2. The facts of the case are that the defacto-complainant-2"d respondent lodged a complaint stating that he is the son-in-law of Iate M. Shyamala Devi who was a member of Sri Bhavana Rushi Co-operative House Building Society (for short 'Society') with membership No.2248. The object of the Society was to allot plots to its members in the land available to the Society as per the approved layout of the Society. Late Shyamala Devi was allotted Plot No.68 to an extent of 160 Sq yards vide proceedings dated 26.08.2008. However, she expired on 31.01.2O0O. The 2nd respondent as the legal heir of late Shyamala Devi 2 appro.lche I t tc members of Society to transfer the sajd plot and to register tlr() same in his name. The 2na respond:nr_ rlso paid requisitt. cl'r:r-gcs lor the said transfer. However. the accuseci postpor erl h: matter on one pretext or the o[her sta ing that the saic l)l )t ,,v.rs involved in a dispute pending belirre t re Court and the s a rr r rvill be registered in the name of 2,,,i rel,,pondent after the rlispute is resolved. The petitioners in collusion, register,tcl r tr,: said plol in the name of one Naver:n Kumirr who is A.4 stat irp llrat he is the member of Society and it .,vas. also registercd or. 21.O9.2O2O, whereas A.4 was nor memb,':r of the Societv zltrl t rc said membership belongs to one p. Ri tmadevi. The pctjti,rncrs hcrein have created fake membersh p d rcument and ille1iall, sold thc same to A.4 against the bye laq s of the Societv ir- ,,, -')ngf11l gain, thereby committed criminal breach of trust a;rc :reerting. Basing on the. said <:om1>lair t, after completion ,.rl nvestigation, charge sheet is hled anrl the same is nunrbert:d r.,; (1.C.No.885 of 2024.

3. Ilr'a-c. ll-i Sai Sumed Yasaswi Kondapalli, learned counsel for lhe p:ritLoners and learned Assistant public prt,secutor appearin g f,;r the respondent No. 1-State. Inspite of s(rrvice of notice, norre alrpcared on behalf of respondent No.2. 3

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the statement of witnesses recorded, even if taken on face vaiue and accepted, it would not make out a case against the petitioners for Lhe offences alleged. The dispute of sale of allotted plots, is between the Society and its members and the remedy is to agitate the dispute under Section 61 of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act (for short Act') by virtue of exemption provided under the said Act for redressal of grievance, bul not the criminal case. He further submitted that petitioners as the members of Managing Committee of thc Society re-allotted the plot to A.4 by following bye laws of [he Society and in lurtherance of resolution No. 14 and 15 passed by the Society on 16.06.2O17 to cancel the piots allotted to the members of Society who have not come forward to register plots as prescribed by the bye laws by paying requisite charges, and to re-allot the plots to the remaining members of Society who are waiting from a long period. Further, the plots allotted by the previous Managing Committee were sought to be cancelled as many members have not come forward to register the plots in their names. It is further submitted that letters were also sent to all such members on 3O.O4.2017 and there was no response and in some cases, notices were returned due to the demise of I I 4 members a s slrch, the Society passed resolution to cancel allolme rLt ot such plots and re allotment was donc' lry way of lotterl as prescribed in clause 42 of Lb,e bye lau,s. He nce, there is no i[1e g..Ji'.r. in allotting the plot to A.4.

5. Ilrr lirrther contention of learned counse. for the petitioncrs, is that the allegation that Plot No.68 allt ged to be allottel t; the mother-in Iaw of 2"d respondr:nt wzrs cancelled rvith a r ir""l to sell and register the same in the rLarl : of A.4 is clevoid c I rrLr:rits. The previous Managing Comm tt.-e, after the de ath cf Sihl'amala Devi in the year 2O0O transl erred her memb,:rsl.ri r 1o her son-in-law on O6.O8.20O8 and z s per the directicrrs issucd on 07.06.20OO by the Registrar .lf C, roperative Socict,c:;, :r der Section a Q) of the Act membr:rship cirn only be transft:r'-erl to the legal heir of the particular rren-rber lut not to any otht:r f )orson. The 2"d respondent is the son irr-lau,. of late ShyanLa a I) -'vi, as such, he is not the legal heir ancl rhere were allegation. against the previous Managing Committee that they have illegrrlil transferred the membership of 1i]5 rLeml)ers of the Socier.. ( c n t -ary to the direc[ions issued under thc Ac, and also against f,r: 'tye lavr.s of the Society. He further c,tnte nded that the saicl : r'r r g;ularities were also noticed by the l)ivis,ional Co- --Jt ;i 7 5 operative Officer of the Department, in his enquiry report dated

19.U..2OI2, the same is under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.61l8 of 2Ol2 and the same is pending. Without considering thc same, fiting charge sheet is nothing but abuse of process of law. Further the 2"d respondent made a representation on IO.Ol.2022 to the District Cooperative Officer, Medchal-Malkajglri District in respect of the same subject matter and he disposed of the said representation observing that transfer of membcrship of Shyamala Devi to the 2"d respondent by the previous Managing Committee was fictitious and that the 2nd respondent is not the legal heir of late Shyamala Devi. It was also observed that allotment of land to Shyamala Devi was in the year 2OO8 i.e., after the demisc, which was a mistakc. As such, the said transfer was stated to be invalid by the enquiry officer. Therefore no offence is made out against these petitioners and the petitioners have followed the guidelines and bye laws of the Society, and the irregularities were committed by the previous Managing Committee for which the 2"d respondent has to avail appropriate remedy. Hence, prayed this Court to qlrash the proceedings against the petitioners. H 6

6. ..) r thc other hand learned Assistant I)ulrl c prosecutor rvorrll l;r.rbmrt that there are certain irregularities and even after pa.yine re quisite fee, without transferring the prr,perty in the nantc () ' !,,'.i respondent, it was transfcrred in trc r;rme ol. third parlies "he investigation reveals that A.4 is rror rr member of the -q o: i _- ty and the said membcrship is in ti re name of it rcquires adjudication anri prayed to Ran:zrrl<,.r. As such, disrriss rh s petition. allotrr ctrr

7. (io1si6tc,1ing the submissions madc by thc earrred counsel for prttrtron:rs and the learned Assistant pul>lic prss,ecutor, the contenlior of petitioners herein is that allotrncn_ ot. plot in the namr: o j li h-1,amala Devi itself is \[.rong as o.t tl Le date of )'' plot, she had died As seen frc,m the r ecord, the cleath c:rri6cate filed by the petitioners sholv tl.rat lhe date of death o1 lilr.26qlz Devi is on 31.01.2O00 ancl plc,t rvrrs allotted to her on .lrr OU.rOO, which shows that on the da te ,rl allotment of piot, S'r-:tmala Devi was not alive. Subsequr:nri.., the 2nd respon 1e n t f lecl an application stating that ht: is thc legal heir of late i}L1 :r rrala Devi and requested to transfer th: sa id plot in his na rn . . r rd the previous Managing Cornmi rr c ra it hout conductir p rr nr,' enqqiry about the status of 2.,r rt:sltondent, /t 7 transferred the membership of Shyamala Devi in the name of 2"d respondent. However, the enquiry ofhcer observed that the said transfer is iliegal. Further, the dispute in this casc is allotment of plot to A.4 bypassing the 2.d respondent. Even according to the petitioners there is recourse availabre under Section 68 of the Act to rectify the same. However, to constitute an offence under Section 42O of 406 of IpC, there must be intention to deceive rhe victim from the beginning, whcreas in the present case, there is no such intention to deceive the victim and the petitioners herein have subsequently acquired the position of Managing Committee after transferring the membership in the name of 2nd respondent. Further, according to the petitioners, they havc already sent notices to all the allottees for paying requisite fee for registration of plots, but they have not received any such information from the members and not received the requisite fee. As such, they have re_ allotted the same to third partics as per the resolution of the Society. Therefore, it can be an irregularity, but not the offence under Section 42O or 4O6 of IpC. Further, there are no averments to constitute the above offences, and the 2.d respondent has to approach proper forum for redress of his grievance. I a I 8 .1

8. In riew of the above discussion, cor trnL ation of proceerlirrgl,; tgainst these petitioners is no[h ng but abuse of proccss of lir,r, As such, the proceedings initiarc,l ag ainst the petitionel s :rr: liable to be quashed.

9. A:corcingly, the Criminal petition is tLllowcrl and the proceedings . gainst the petitioners in C.C.No.g Bt_ ot 2024 on the file c,f )( Aclditional Junior Civil Judge-cum_X_A lclitional Melropclitan Magistrate at Medchal, Rachalloncla, Medchal District ale l r:rcby quashed. Miscellaneous pe!itlo rs. rending, if a rir , s ti Ir st rnd closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The X Adcll. ,iunior Civil Judge cum X Addl Medchal, Racrakonda, Medchal District Sd/- K. AMMAJI - DEPUT'/ REGISTRAR ,r SEGTION OFFICER I M&ropolitar tvlagistrate at

2. The station l-lcuse officer, Jawahar Nagar Police Station. Racrakonda. 3. One CC to S'i. Siai Sumed Yasaswi Kondapalli, Advoc;ate OptJCl' 4. Two CCs tc t)ublic Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana. [oUT] 5. Two CD ()cPir:; r'. YJR /PSI, HIGH COIJRI' DATED:101A612025 I I Iti ",^t ? 6 ;,rrv 2925 o U t \ ,.) Y\ ORDER CRLP.No. 1 51,'l 0 of 2024 2 /t /). ,/' I 1/ ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.