The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1004 of 2013 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate at tvlalkajgiri, Cyberabad in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(CRLPMP. NO: 669 OF 2015) Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. 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 including the appearance of the petrtioners in C.C. No. 1004 of 2013 on the file of X lvletropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M,Vivekananda Reddy, the Assrstant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER G IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE.I.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.661 of 2015 Date:01.12.2025 Between: P.Vikram Deva Reddy and another AND Kandadi Venkat Reddy and another ...petitioners ...respondents ORDER This Clriminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1004 of 2013 on the file of leamed X Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed AS accused Nos.9 and 14 for the ot'tences pLrnishable under Sections 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC').

2. Heard Ms.Tanu Sri, leamed counsel, representing N4r.'I.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and I N{r.M.Vivekananda Reddy. Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 2

3. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No. I has not chosen to enter appearance.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very same allegations were levelled against accused Nos. I I and 12, and they approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No. 13871 of 2013, seeking quashing of the proceedings against them. This Court was pleased to allow the said petition on 08.09.2022 and quashed the proceedings against them, and the said order has become final. In the present criminal petition,, very similar allegations are levelled against the petitioners/accuscd Nos.9 and 14, thcrelore, they are also entitled to the SAlTIC relief granted by this Court in Crl.P.No. 1387 i of 20 I 3.

5. Learned Assistant Public I'rosecutor has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and in particular, the order passed by this Court in Crt.P.No.l387l of 2013, dated 08.09.2022, the proceedings in C.C.No.1004 of 2013 against the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and l4 are hereby4ug;hed. J

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-B.REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Cyberabad 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Keesara, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI T PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies & TPKiPSI- l I I I I I T HIGH COURT DATED:0111212025 .-::-\ i.il.i n c \ ,f () t 0 ? 1 i!1ir -: ll .1. ORDER CRLP.No.661 of 2015 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ,t' Lt' 1b / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.13871 OF 2013 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/Al1 and Al2 for quashing all the proceedings against them in CC No.1O04 of 2Ol3 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Which charge sheet is hled by the Keesara police for the offence under Sections 42O and 120-B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2na petitioner/Al2 died, AS such, case against A12 stands abated.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the l"t respondent/complainant and 66 other farmers are owners of Acs.177.26 guntas situated at Keesara Dayara village 1n Sy.Nos. 10, 1 1, 17 ,16,15,39, 123,257 ,26+,263,262, 164, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 and cultivating the same since 60 years and above with peaceful possession. A1 to A7 colluded with these the petitioners who are directors of M/s.Vikrama Infra and got registered part of the land i.e., the agriculture land in Sy.No. 123 Paft, admeasuring acs.9.00 guntas and land in 2 Sy.No.159 part, admeasuring Acs.13.16 guntas, in Sy.No160 Part, admeasuring 9.16 guntas in Sy.No. 164, admeasuring Acs. 11.23 guntas, in Sy.No.257, admeasuring Acs.2O.1B guntas, total land admeasuring acs.54.33 guntas, situated at Keesara Dayara village, Keesara Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under Keesara Dayara Gram Panchayat.

5. The defacto complainant and other 66 farmers are pattadars of the said lands purchased by petitioners and all of them were given ownership certificate under Section 38 E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and since then they have been in peaceful possession. The accused I to 7, who are legal heirs of late Tarabai, challenged the certificate issued to the defacto complainant and others under Section 38-E of the Act, before the Joint Collector. However, their appeal was dismissed and the ownership of the defacto complainant was conltrmed.

6. The police having registered complaint, after investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to ,{16 for the reason of entering into criminal conspiracy and committing the act of cheating. 3 A,1 to A'7 registered the propert5r in favour of these petitioners and others, though it is to their knowledge that the accused A'1 to A7 did not have any right over the said property. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even admitting the sale transaction, no offence of cheating or criminal conspiracy is made out. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in the cases of i) Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwavi v. CBI, New Delhir, ii) Indian Oil Corporation v NEPC India Limited2, iii) Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhif , Department of Home3, iv) Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana+ and argued that none of the ingredients under Section 42O are made out and unless there is misrepresentation pursuant to which a person is induced and delivers property, the offence of Section 42O IPC will be attracted. Further, there has to be an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act and only in the said circumstances, an offence under Section 120-8 of 1(2003)5 Supreme court cases 257 '?12006;6 Supreme Court Cases 735 t 4 12ot91 11supr".u court cases 705 2021 SCC Online 5C 1184 4 IPC is attracted. No such evidence is available to infer criminal consplracy.

8. The case against these petitioners is that they have purchased the property, being the Directors of the company on behalf of M/s.Vikrama Infra Ventures Private Limited.

9. The ownership is in the name of th^e defacto complainant and other farmers by virtue of Section 38 E ownership certificate. In the said circumstances, even assuming that ,{1 to A7 have registered the land in the name of these petitioners, such registration would not confer any right to the petitioners over the property in any manner. When the property does not belong to Al to A7, the said transaction between A1 to ,{7 and the petitioners selling the land of defacto complainant and others would not in any manner create any right either to the accused A I to A7 or to these petitioners.

10. Except the police investigation stating that the transaction of sale was in between A 1 to A7 and these petitioners, there is absolutely no allegation that these petitioners have, at any point of time, either approached lhe defacto complainant or any of the other farmers in any manner or induced them to part with any property As already stated, the sale transaction between Al to A7 will not in 5 zrny manner create any right to these petitioners over the said property. In the said circumstances, no offence of cheating is made against these petitioners. The petitioners have purchased the property in the name of the company, but the company is not named as accused. For the aforesaid reasons, the case against the petitioner/A11 is hereby set aside.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner/A1 1 in CC No.1004 of 2Ol3 on the file olX Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri. Date: 08.O9.2022 K.SURENDER, J