Telangana High Court
Pargi Narayana Reddy vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp on 13 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1179 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.8 of 2016 of
Maheshwaram Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
468, 471, 120b and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that on 13.01.2016 the de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against the
petitioners stating that he and Banda Sailoo purchased Ac.6.32
Guntas of land in Sy.No.59, Dilwarguda village, from Mr.
Moinuddin Ali Khan in the year 1966. After the death of Banda
Sailoo, his sons claimed the property, but the complainant and
other landowners discovered a fraud and filed an application to
cancel the alleged petitioners' claim.
3. Heard Sri R.R. Kalyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent
SKS, J
No.1 - State and Sri M. Narsing Rao, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute
is purely civil in nature and the complaint lacks ingredients of the
alleged offences, making it liable to be quashed. He further
submitted that respondent No.2 has filed multiple cases, including
a civil suit, revision, and appeal, which are pending adjudication.
He contended that the petitioners are the rightful owners of the
disputed property, having purchased it from the original owner's
legal heir and that respondent No.2 is trying to criminalize the
dispute, abuse the process of law, and harass the petitioners with
malice intention. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal
petition.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted that respondent No.2 and Banda Sailoo, purchased 6
acres and 32 guntas of land in Survey No.59 from Mr. Moinuddin
Ali Khan in the year 1966. However, the petitioners allegedly
created fabricated documents, misappropriated the land, and
cheated him. He further submitted that witnesses were examined,
but the petitioners obtained an interim stay from this Court. He
further submitted that the petitioners filed a C.R.P., which has
SKS, J
since been disposed of and that the petitioners have no connection
with the property, yet, without any ownership rights, they executed
a GPA and sold the land to third parties, thereby committing fraud
against respondent No.2. Though the petitioners have filed a suit,
it does not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings, as there
is clear evidence of cheating and misappropriation of property.
Therefore, he prayed that the Court dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are
serious in nature. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against
the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the criminal petition.
7. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel
and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court,
without delving into the merits of the case, observes that the trial
Court, while referring the matter to the police, did not provide any
reasons except for a mere direction to refer the matter to the
Maheshwaram Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
investigation.
8. Furthermore, as observed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 4794 of
2018 and Crl.P. No. 12390 of 2023, relying on the judgment of the
SKS, J
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Venkatesh & Others v. State of
Karnataka & Another 1 , the trial Court is required to assign
reasons while referring a complaint to the police for investigation.
In the present case, no such reasons have been recorded by the
trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the order referring the complaint to the police is
set aside. However, this shall not preclude the complainant from
seeking appropriate remedies before the competent criminal Court
in accordance with law.
10. With the above observations, this criminal petition stands
disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 13.03.2025
SAI
(2022) 5 SSC 639
