The High Court · 2025

-Through Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, T.S. S.H.O,Chandrayangutta PS, Rep. by its 2 Sahebzada Mir Mohammed Ali Khan, S/o Late Sahebzada Mir Shahamath Ali Khan, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.18- l-51416/1/A, Ahmed Colony, Phool Bagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainants Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in 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.3708 of 2022 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the Petitioners/Accused No.'l to 3. accused No.5 & 5. l.A. NO: 2 oF 2024 Petition under Section s2g of BNSS praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, flre Hiqh court mav be pleased to grant stay of ail further proceeoings incLuJrnt i" ,0i,"#"""'o/,n" petitioners in c.c.No 3,708 or 2022 on the fire 6t tn" cniuiu-.troiirit"" rrargi;i*t" at Hyderabad , pendinq drsposal of the criminal petition. This Petition cc,ming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the argumenr i of smt. S madhavi, Advocate for the petirioner and sri E Ganesh, Assistant l)ubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondernt No..1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16O95 of20.24 ORDER This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of Codc of Criminal Procedure, i973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 in C.C.No.37O8 of 2022 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under sections 464 and 42O of Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short'l.P.CJ.

2. Breif facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and other accused alleging that the father of respondent No.2 died on O5.O7.2O2O and during his life time he acquired the property, admeasuring 200 square yards, bearing Municipal No. 18- 1- 514 / I / I /A, situated at Ahmed Colony, Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad, through registered gift deed bearing document No.6987 of 2006, dated 18.12.2O06, excuted by the mother of respondent No.2, which she acquired through inheritance lrom her ancestors. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 is -itf 2 SKS,J Crl.P. Yo.l6095 of 2024 having six brorhers, including him and after de mise of his father, himself and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 started livir g separately and they have not taken all house hold utensils :rlong with them. They have kept some of the said uten:,ils in their respective rooms in the house and locked them anil left to the rented houses. Ihat being so, respondent No.2 ca:ne to know through the real estate agents that petitioner Nos I to 3 are selling their join : owned property.

3. Later, rx,hen respondent No.2, other sisters trnd other brothers approa,:hed petitioner Nos. I [o 3 for par,ition of the house, they chiLnged their attitude towards resp< ndent No.2 and other family members. Thereafter, they enquire C with Sub_ Registrar and came to know that petitioner Nos. 1 rc 3, accused No.4 and mother of respondent No.2 creatcd a flase rtocument of partition deed in collusion with each other ancl got partrtioned the property of heir late father u,ithout informing rcspondent No.2 and other lamily members on 3O.O9 .2021 , vid r document No.6823 of 2021. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 have a( rive role in creating the said false partition deed and are witnr sses to the said document. 3 SKS,J Crl.P.Ho.l5O9S of 2024

4. Basing on the said complaint the Police registered a case in Crime No. 135 of 2022 and after completion of investigation, they filed Charge Sheet before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad-

5. Heard Sri Mohd. Fasihuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 state. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the matter is civil in nature, as respondent No.2 filed civil suit vide O.S.No.4363 of 2O2l for partition, separate possession and for cancellation of partition dced, which was already executed by petitioenr Nos.I to 3 and their mother and the same is pending before the Court below. 81.' suppressing the said fact, with the same set of facts, as alleged in the suit, respondent No.2 filed the present complainl- He further submitted that there is no iota of truth to prove the allegations against the petitioners. He further submitted that as a counter blast respondent No.2 hled lhe present case, as he was unable to face the trial in the said suit. Therefore, the allega[ions leveled against the petitioners do i I 4 sKs,J Crl.P No.16095 of2024 \] not constitute .rny offence, as such, prayed the C](urt to quash the proceedings against them

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Publ c Prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled against the [,- titioners are serious in nature which requires trial and pr:ryerl the Court to dismiss the petition and consequently, to direct t[ e trizil Court to dispose of the matter as the matter pertains lo t.l e year 2022.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions r-rade by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal o the material available on re,rord, it is noted that the petition(:r s hacl earlier Iiled Crl.P.No.6047 of 2023 beforc this C( urt seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against th(, m. However, the said petition was dismissed by order dated 25 06.2024. ln the said order, this Court observed that a perusal o1-the record reveals that thc: second respondent had already fi1,.d a civil suit on the same set of facts. The main allegation zrgainst the petitioners is that they had obtained a legal lr,,ir ct:rtificate excluding thc second respondent, and this issu,, is also the subject matter in O.S. No. 4363 of 2021. This t lourt further held that when the matter is pending before the Ci' il Court, it is for the second respondent to prove that the said rltc.ument is a 5 sxs,J Crl.P.Xo.l6095 of 2024 forged onc. It was also observed that there is no bar to the filing of a criminai case during the pendency of a civil suit. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioners require a fuli- fledged trial, and as such, the proceedings could not be quashed.

9. In the present petition, it is noticed that there are no changed circumstances from those prevailing at the time of filing of the earlier quash petition. [n view thereof, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. This Criminal Petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 1O. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/, s. LLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REGISTRAR s I i \ ECTION OFFICER

1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad 2. The station House Officer, Chandrayangutta Poll ;. i;;ee;i" the Public Prosecutor' Hish court fo flSiitono. Fasihuddin, Advocate [oPUC] ;.'o;CCL Smt. S madhavi Advocate [oPUCl 6 Two CD CoPies Hvderabad (OUT) Yt- ce Station, HYderaba r the State of Telangana at HIGH COURT DATED:0410712025 ORDER CRLP.No.16095 of 2024 20 SFP ?ofr \.,, * /)t DISMISSING THE CRLP q ceR(eb fr**