The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.16049 0F 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in Crime No'2 14 of 2024 of Maldakal Police Station, Jogulamba-Gadwal' The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2) and under Section 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a report before police on 06-12'2024 stating that his parents purchased land to an extent of Ac'5'O0 in Sy.No.428 from the petitioner herein and after six months he registered the above land in the name of his mother Narsamma' But after one month, they came to knor,r' that the said land u'as already registered in the name of Budda Narsanna, as such, when his parents asked the petitioner/ accused about registration of land, the accused stated that he will sought out the issue, but he did not do so and dragged on the matter for years without registering the land. It is further stated panchayats were conducted before the vitlage elders whcre, the 2 petitioner said that he committed a mistake and he will register the land in the name of mother of defacto complainant. Further, when the defacto complainant asked him to register the land, the petitioner used filthy ianguage and also stated that he will not registe r the land. As such, requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint the police registcred I hc case against the petitioner for the above offences. .-?. Ileard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for tire petitioner a nd learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I -State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue pc rtains to land transaction of the year 2007. The defacto com plainant is not the aggrieved part5r. His parents entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment irr Delhi Race Club Vs State of U.p.r, u,herein, in para 27 it is observed that there cannot be accusations of both criminal breach of trust under Section 316 (21 ancl cheafing under Section 318 (4) of BNS; that there is no entrustment oi property by the victim to the accused. Therefore, the offence ' 2024 SCC Online SC 2248 3 nnder Section 316 (2\ of BNS is not applicable to the petitioner' To attract offence under Section 318 (4) of BNS there must be intention to cheat from the beginning and it has to be shown that property was dishonestly misappropriated or converted to the use. Hence, the same is not attracted in this case' Further' to attract the offence under Section 352 of BNS' intimidation shallbetoCausedisturbancetothepublic.Inthcpresentcase, thematteriscivilinnatureandwithoutfilingthesuitfor specific performance, the defacto complainant lodged a report only to threaten the petitioner to settle the civil scores' The defactocomplainanthasnolocusstandiitolodgeacomplaint and there are not allegations against the petitioncr lo constitute the alleged offences. Hence, prayed to quash the FIR registered againsl the Pet itioner.

5.Thoughnoticeisservedon2'drespondent'noneappeared on his behalf. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submitthatadmittedly,tlrereisadelayof16yearsinlodging the complaint. However, the complaint shou's that as panchayats were conducted with regard to this issue' there was delay in lodging the report. As the matter is at FIR stage' it requires investigation, the proceedings cannot be quashed' Hence, prayed to dismiss this criminal petition' 4

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the alleged offences against the petitioner are under Section 316 (21, 31S (4) and 352 of BNS. The :rllcgations show that the said agreement was entered in the year 2oo7 but registration was not done in favour of parents of t hc defacto complainant and there is no information on record to shou, that that any suit is filed. According to learned counscl for the petitioner, no suit is Iiled for specific performanrx' of contract. Thc averments in the complaint manifestly show that it is only a non_performance of contract by the petitiorrcr,/:rccused for rvhich the party= iras to iiie suit for specific performance. There are no grounds to constitute the offences alregccl against the petitioner as there is no entrustment of property to him to constitute the offence under Section 316 (2) of BNS and to prove the offence under Section 318 (4) the cornplainant has to pi.ove that from the inception the accused has intention to cheat. The petitioner entered into agreement of sale and he repeatedly said that he will register the land. It is also seen that panchayats were held before the village elders, which shows that Section 3lg (4) does not attract to the averments in the complaint. Furthermore, as the alleged execution of agreement of sale is of the year 2OOZ and the 5 present complaint is lodged in the year 2O24' continuation of nothing but abuse of the Petitioner is proceedings against the Proceedings process of law and initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed' 7 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No'214 of 2024 of Maldakal Police Station' Jogulamba-Gadwal herebY quashed. Miscellaneouspetiiions'pending'ifany'shallstand closed To, //TRUE COPY/' D/. MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR D ECTION OFFICER I

1. The Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal 2. The Station House Officer, Maldakal Police Station' Jogulamba District' 3. One CC to Sri. Baglekar Akash Kumar' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies s''rt/sh 'b/ ,/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1010412025 ORDER CRLP.No.16049 of 2024 JR lHE S14 10JUil m l- '+ t Or- !) \ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED g I ,. 5 /