Telangana High Court
Mohammed Mazarullah, Hyd vs P.P., Hyd And Ano on 28 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.364 of 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in Crime
No.230 of 2014 pending on the file of Habeebnagar Police Station,
Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused having
collected huge extra amounts from the de-facto complainant apart
from the agreed amount as per the agreement of sale in respect of the
schedule properties, deceived the de-facto complainant by not
delivering the possession of the schedule properties to her. He also
threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, a
case was registered vide Crime No.230 of 2014 before the
Habeebnagar Police, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406, 483, 504 of the IPC read with Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C.
3. Heard Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1-State and Sri Deepesh Bahadur, learned counsel
for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that
though the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offences, a
false case is filed against the petitioner with a mala fide intention to
grab the schedule properties. He secondly submitted that the de-facto
complainant agreed to support the petitioner financially by lending
money and obtained the documents i.e., agreement of sale-cum-GPA
and gift settlement deed in her favour fraudulently by taking
advantage of illiteracy of the petitioner in respect of the schedule
properties. He thirdly submitted that the petitioner revoked the said
gift settlement deed in respect of the schedule properties. He fourthly
submitted that though the disputes between the petitioner and the de-
facto complainant are civil in nature, a criminal case is filed with false
and fabricated allegations only to harass the petitioner. In support of
his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1
and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted
that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He further submitted that
though respondent No.2 paid the sufficient amounts as demanded by
the petitioner for purchasing the schedule properties, the petitioner
deceived her by not delivering the possession of the schedule
(2021) 14 SCC 626
SKS,J
properties. He also submitted that the petitioner besides collecting the
huge amounts from respondent No.2, also threatened her with dire
consequences. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the
judgments of the Apex Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi2
and Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and others 3 prayed
the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner stating that there are serious allegations and
investigation is not yet completed and at this stage, quashing of
proceedings does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the
Criminal Petition.
7. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, this
Court has perused the material available on record. The material
evidence available on record prima facie discloses that respondent
No.2 paid the amounts to the petitioner for purchasing the schedule
properties and the petitioner failed to deliver vacant possession of the
schedule properties to respondent No.2. Pertinently, while dealing
with quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., the Court cannot evaluate the evidence or go into
discrepancies in the evidence or act as an appellate Court and despite
the fact that a civil dispute exists between the parties, a criminal case
(1999) 3 SCC 259
(2024) 10 SCC 527
SKS,J
is maintainable. In the present case, the petitioner having collected
the amounts from respondent No.2 under the agreement of sale,
deceived respondent No.2 by not delivering the possession of the
schedule properties, not only that when she requested for delivery of
possession of the schedule properties, the petitioner threatened her
with dire consequences. Though the petitioner and the de-facto
complainant are close relatives, he deceived the de-facto complainant
even after receiving consideration of executed gift deed and same was
cancelled unilaterally. These disputed facts requires thorough
investigation as the case is at initial stage, those disputed facts cannot
be decided in quash petition. Hence, considering peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner at this stage and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal
petition shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE SMT.K.SUJANA
Date: 28.03.02025
gms
