Telangana High Court
Akula Sudharani vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5163 OF 2025
O R D E R:
The case of petitioners - Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in
C.C.No. 698 of 2023 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Medchal for the alleged offences under Sections
420 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. is that the 2nd
respondent lodged a complaint on 02.02.2023 alleging that
petitioner No.1 and her husband Srinivasa Rao (petitioner No.2)
and daughter Likitha with an intention to grab the property of
their mother, obtained the certificate from the office of the MRO,
Alwal misrepresenting that she is the only daughter to her
parents and basing on the false documents, executed a
registered Gift Deed on the name of Akula Likitha (daughter of
petitioners). On coming to know of the same, the 2nd respondent
on 10-11-2022, when asked petitioners, they threatened to do
whatsoever she likes. Basing on the said complaint, it is stated,
police registered FIR No. 79 of 2023.
1.1. According to petitioners, they are wife and husband
and they have been falsely implicated by the 2nd respondent by
converting the civil issue into criminal. The 2nd respondent also
filed OS No.245 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malkajgiri for
partition of the property left by their mother and the same is
pending. It is stated, the parents of the 1st petitioner during
her life time had given shares of the 2nd respondent and another
sister viz. Sunitha. Later the 2nd respondent and another sister
Sunitha ignored their parents and at that juncture, petitioner
No.1 looked after the welfare of her parents, as such a Will Deed
was executed in her favour. Family Members Certificate dated
07-01-2020 was obtained from the office of the MRO by their
mother and further, it is registered after the death of the father
of the petitioner in so far as the Family Members Certificate is
concerned. Therefore, no accusation can be attributed as
against petitioners knowing fully-well that petitioners have
nothing to do with the alleged offence.
1.2. In the instant case, it is stated, petitioners had no
dishonest intention, hence Section 420 IPC does not attract. In
so far as Section 504 IPC is concerned, the 2nd respondent
created a false story to suit the said offence. As per the contents
of the complaint, the dispute is purely civil in nature and the
2nd respondent with a mala fide intention to harass petitioners
converted the civil issue into criminal. There is no prima-facie
case made out to connect petitioners into this false case,
therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse
of process of law, hence liable to be quashed.
1.3. It is also stated, previously petitioners filed Criminal
Petition No.2569 of 2023 to quash the proceedings in
F.I.R.No.79 of 2023 on the file of the Alwal Police Station,
Cyberabad Commissionerate, R.R.District, and this Court
disposed of the said Petition on the ground that transactions
appeared to be between family members, Investigating Officer
should conclude the investigation in FIR No.79 of 2023 on the
file of Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad
without taking any coercive steps against petitioners/Accused
No.1 to 3 and petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating
Officers, as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
It is further stated, Criminal Petition No.7294 of 2023 filed by
Accused No.3 in the subject case was allowed on 23.04.2024
quashing the proceedings against her. Hence, the Criminal
Petition.
2. By order dated 15.04.2025, all further proceedings
in C.C.No. 698 of 2023 pending on the file of the X Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal District are
stayed against petitioners - Accused 1 and 2.
3. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that
Petitioners fraudulently procured a legal heir certificate,
identifying Petitioner No. 1 as the sole daughter of their
deceased parents, and subsequently used this illegitimate
document to execute a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of her
own daughter, thereby dispossessing Respondent No. 2 and her
sister of their rightful inheritance. Under the guise of this
fraudulent certificate, Petitioner No.1 executed a Gift Settlement
deed vide Document No.5123 of 2022 in favour of her daughter,
Akula Likitha. When confronted, petitioners used abusive
language which conduct not only demonstrates their contempt
for lawful proceedings but also underscores the deliberate and
malicious nature of their fraudulent acts.
3.1. It is stated further that Petitioners' claim that their
deceased mother personally obtained the family member
certificate is demonstrably false; evidence suggests the mother's
signatures were procured under coercion and this is further
substantiated by the stark contradiction between the alleged
Will executed on 01.02.2021, which explicitly acknowledges
three daughters, and the alleged affidavit, which inexplicably
names only Petitioner No.1. This discrepancy irrefutably
indicates that both the affidavit and the family member
certificate were obtained through fabricated documents and
deceitful means.
3.2. In Criminal Petition No. 7294 of 2023 filed by
Accused No.3 who is none other than the daughter of petitioners
herein, this Court, in the order unequivocally established that
Petitioner No. 1 deliberately suppressed material facts by failing
to disclose that her mother had three daughters when obtaining
the family member certificate. The sole rationale for quashing
the proceedings against Accused No. 3 was her status as a
minor-a 17-year-old at the time the illegal family member
certificate was procured thus precluding any finding of her
involvement in its fraudulent acquisition.
3.3. It is also stated, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a
charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against an accused
cannot be quashed merely because the allegations may also
disclose a civil dispute between the parties. The mere fact that
the allegations also make out existence of civil dispute would
not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the
allegations and material makes out the criminal intention of the
case. In this petition, the disputed facts and questions
necessitate a thorough examination and resolution through a
full trial, hence, it would be inappropriate to prematurely
foreclose the opportunity for a just and complete determination
of the facts. Thus, the present matter cannot be quashed
invoking the inherent power of this Hon'ble High Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS.
4. Smt. P. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for
petitioners relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka 1 and
Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal 2 and contends
that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture, but if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted, High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
5. Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of judgments has consistently held
that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the
criminal proceedings, the Court exercising extraordinary
jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor
enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. In this
regard, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand 3 and
Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar (Crl.Appeal arising out of SLP
(Crl) No. 480 of 2025).
6. The main ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 420 IPC. are deception, dishonest inducement, and
delivery of property or consent to retain property. A perusal of
the FIR discloses prima facie allegation of dishonest intention on
2025 Law suit (SC) 1041
(2023) 15 SCC 135
2024 SCC Online SC 685
the part of petitioners in getting the property registered in
favour of their daughter by making false representation that
petitioner No.1 is the sole daughter to her parents. This
allegation prima facie attracts the ingredients of Section 420
IPC. Here, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. 4 wherein it was held
that 'it is well-settled that when considering an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot conduct a mini trial but
instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged
are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without
undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is
some substance in the allegations made which could meet the
threshold of statutory language'. It is also to be seen the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of judgments has consistently held
that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing the
criminal proceedings, the correctness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the
touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise
to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the
Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set
aside.
(2025) 2 SCC 604
7. In view of the settled legal position, this Court at
this stage, is not inclined to examine the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. The Criminal
Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
9. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
12th November, 2025
ksld
