The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court at 2 Hyderabad. Mohammad Hanif, S/o. Late Mohammad Bandenwaj , Age: 42 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o H.No.1-4-849, IDSTMT Layout, Rayachur District, Karnataka state ..RES'.NDENT'/..M'LATNANTS 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 cc.No.1716 2024 on the file of the ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri. Medchal-Malkajg iri District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in cc.No.171612024 on the file of the ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District during the pendency of criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of cr:iminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. P. ANIMI REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.16228 of 2o24 ORAL ORDER: This Criminai Petition is fried seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 1716 of 2024 on tlte hle of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 42O and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short 1PC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that ot 06.07.2024 respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a report against the petitioner before the Police stating that he had entered into an agreemeRt with the petitioner for the purchase of two parcels of land, one measuring Ac.43.6O0 square yards sitrrated near the Railway Station, Raichur, and another measuring Ac.72O located at Matumarri V complainant illage, Raichur. As part of his business, the had subsequently sold the said land parcels to various purch asers and handed over all the sale proceeds to the petitioner. Ho to return matter wever, despite repeated requests, the petitioner failed triginal larrd documents and kept postponing the rilretext or another. The complainant made several l &*xr*. SI{S,J c:i.P.No'L622E of 2024 attempts to contact him' but lhe petitioner had switched off his mobile phone. In the month of June 2024 ' t,rre compiainant visited the residence of the petitioner and demanded his share of the amount and the original documents' However' instead of resolving the issue, the petitioner allegedly threatened him with dire consequences.

3. Basing on the said complaint' the Police registered a case ln Crime No.500 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 42o arrd5o6 of IPC and after completion of invesdgation, they lrled charge sheet, vide C'C'No' 1716 of 2024 before the learned II Additionai Metropolitan Magistrate' Malkaj giri' Medchal-Malkaj giri District. Aggrieved thereby' the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him'

4. Heard Sri P Animi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petittoner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda ReddY' learned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor appearlng on behalf of respondent No'l - State Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none aPPeared on his behalf' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 5. allegations made against the petitioner were false' baseless' and SNS.J crl.P-No.t6229 ot 2O;4 motivated and that the petitioner had no connection with the alleged offence, and the compiaint was filed by respondent No.2 solely with an intention to extract money from the petitioner. He further submitted that the FIR and the complaint did not disclose the specihc date on which respondent No.2 ailegedly visited the house of the petitioner, except for a vague reference to the month of June. In fact, respondent No.2 never visited the petitioner,s house in that month. If at alt there was any such visit or threat as alleged, respondent No.2 ought to have filed the complaint at that time, but he failed to do so.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had paid the agreed commission to respondent No.2 and handed over all the relevant documents at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed and that the dispute arose oniy after respondent No.2 demanded additional commission, which the petitioner refused. The present complaint was a result of collusion between respondent No.2 and the former manager of the petitioner. and was filed only to harass the petitioner. He further contended that if any amount was actually due, the proper remedv for respondent No.2 was to approach a civil court for recovery, and not to lodge a false criminal complaint and that the petitioner had already handed over all necessary documents to the purchasers on 4 sxs'J c;|1r.P.No.16228 ol2024 2a.Oa.2O23, and no dues were outstanding' Therefore' he prayed the Court. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal Petition' 7 . On the other hand' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed bY the Petitioner, he is submitted that as per the documents the witness to the saie deed between the petitioner and third parties, as such, he prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders In the light of the submissions made by both the learned 8. counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record' it is noted that, according to respondent No'2' he purchased the property from the petitioner' However' the documents hled by the petitioner reveal that respondent No'2 is only a witness to the said transaction, which is evidenced by a registered sale deed' Furthermore,thetransactioninquestionpertainstoimmovabie property situated in the State of Karnataka' 9 As per the petitioner, the role of respondent No'2 was only that of a commission agent' Notably, the Investigating Officer has to establish that not collected any documentary evidence respondent No.2 had purchased the said property from the In the absence of such material' the continuation of petitioner 4 5 ctr. p.No. r6228 orsif;;i criminai proceedings against the petitioner process of law. Therefore, the are Iiable to be quashed. amounts to abuse of proceedings against the petitioner i O. Accordingly, this criminal petition is aliowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.17 76 of 2024 on the file of the iearned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Medchal_Malkajgiri Disrrict, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t //TRUE COPYII .) SECTION OFFICER To, n_Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkaioiri Officer, Potice Station Xir-snrigrJr, -R;;Hil, '1 . The llAddl. Metropolita 2. The Station House Commissionerate. 3. One CC to Sri. p ANtMt REDDY, Advocate tOpUCJ 4. Two CCs to pUBL|C PROSECUTOR High'Court ftr the State of Tetangana 5. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad [OUT]. TTS/PSL $ *&&'. ills- S 14, Go( -) c r.J ,12 IUG r0z5 a- .L * D EsP HIGH COURT DATED: 31tOZl2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.1622B ot 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED @ofo fu"