Mallepalli Nagaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2575 Tel

           HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                     AND
          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

                           W.A.No.432 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao)

1.     This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dt.16.08.2021 in

W.P.No.7400 of 2021.


2.     By the said order, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the

Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to declare the inaction of the

3rd respondent in registering the FIR based on complaints lodged by

the appellant on 13.02.2021 and 27.02.2021 before the respondents as

illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to register

the said complaints.

3. After considering the contentions of the parties, the learned

Single Judge had held that the appellant is alleging breach of

agreements of sale entered into by him with the 5th respondent on

24.02.2016 and 05.03.2016, that the 5th respondent acted in violation

of the said agreements and had executed a sale deed dt.18.01.2017 in

favour of the 7th respondent with regard to part of the subject property,

that the appellant came to know about the subsequent document

dt.18.01.2017 before June, 2018 itself, but the appellant did not file

any suit for specific performance of the agreements dt.24.02.2016 and

05.03.2016; and the remedy before the Civil Court on the basis of the ::2::

said agreements was barred as on the date of filing of the complaint

on 13.02.2021. The learned Single Judge also found that the appellant

wishes to transform the civil dispute into a criminal dispute and under

the guise of pendency of the FIR, he wants to recover the advance sale

consideration paid by him under the said agreements of sale to the 5th

respondent and he did not even file a complaint under Section 200

Cr.P.C., with the learned Magistrate.

4. We agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and we

also hold that under Section 468 Cr.P.C., there is a prohibition for the

court to take cognizance of the offence alleged by the appellant at this

point of time, since the period of limitation for taking such cognizance

under sub-Section (2) thereof had also expired.

5. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal. It is,

accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage.

6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Appeal

shall also stand dismissed. No costs.

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ

______________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 13.09.2021.

Lrkm