Telangana High Court
D.Bhaskara Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 26 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11615 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.
No.2960 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.
2. Heard Mr.S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Govardhan Venu, learned counsel, representing M/s Nomos
Vistas The Lawyers, appearing for respondent No.2 and
Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. That on 20.05.2022, the de-facto complainant respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he being the father and
Power of Attorney holder of C.Nithish Goud, who is the absolute
owner of Plot No.380 forming part of Layout
No.3020/MP2/HMDA/1992, dated 20.08.1992 in Sy.No.529 of
Budvel Village having purchased the same under a registered Sale
Deed document No.5842/2016, dated 27.06.2016 from
Pushpalatha and has been in possession of the plot since the date
of purchase and that as things stood thus, Mr.Baddam Narsimha
Das Goud claiming to be the owner of plot No.380 in Sy.No.529/ అ,
529/ఆ and 530/అ has filed a suit in O.S.No.2009 of 2018 on the
file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District and
the same is pending adjudication and it was posted to 22.06.2022
and that taking this suit as a noose, Mr.Baddam Narsimha Das
Goud along with accused Nos.2 to 8 using their official post are
interfering with complainant's possession and trying to intimidate
them and that out of such attempts, on 05.05.2022, the petitioner
along with henchmen have come up to the plot and tried to
alienate the same to third parties and that when complainant
objected for the same, the accused have threatened him with dire
consequences. Hence, requested to take action. Based on the said
complaint, the present crime was registered against the petitioner
and other accused for the offence under Sections 420 and 506 r/w
34 of IPC and after conducting investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.
No.2960 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely
implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations
made in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients for
the offences under Sections 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC are not
attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that accused
No.1 had purchased the property to an extent of 200 square yards
in plot No.380 in Sy.Nos.529/అ, 529/ఆ and 530/అ through
registered Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018, from its rightful owners by
paying valuable sale consideration and since then he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the property and he is a bonafide
purchaser.
4.2 He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged a
complaint alleging that his son had purchased 200 square yards in
Sy.No.529 through Registered Sale Deed bearing document
No.5842 of 2016, dated 27.06.2016, and the petitioner along with
other accused are trying to interfere with the subject property.
When the son of respondent No.2 claimed the very same property
of accused No.1 through alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated
27.06.2016, accused No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.2009 of 2018 on
the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar seeking declaration and perpetual injunction and also
declaring the Sale Deed in favour of Pushpalatha as illegal and null
and void and the same is not binding upon him. Respondent No.2
lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and others alleging
that the petitioner and other accused without having any manner
of right, forged and fabricated documents and are claiming rights
over the property. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime
was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and
506 of IPC and the Investigating Officer after conducting
investigation deleted the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of
IPC and filed final report for the offences under Sections 420 and
506 r/w 34 of IPC. Once the Investigating Officer deleted the
offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC, implicating the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 r/w 34 of
IPC, is not permitted under law, especially the ingredients for the
offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC are not made out.
4.3. He further submitted that the nature of allegations made in
the complaint is purely civil in nature. To resolve the civil dispute,
respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by giving it a different
colour implicating the petitioner for the penal provisions. Even
according to the allegations made in the complaint, son of
respondent No.2 purchased the property from Pushpalatha. The
original owners have already cancelled the said GPA on 26.06.1995
even before execution of Sale Deed by GPA holders in favour of
Pushpalatha, who purchased the said property on 02.12.1996.
Once the GPA holders is not having any right to execute the
document by virtue of cancellation of the GPA, respondent No.2 or
his son is not entitled to claim any rights over the property. To
decide the ownership/title of the said property, a comprehensive
civil suit i.e. O.S.No.2009 of 2018 is pending before the civil Court
and the entire allegations levelled by respondent No.2 has to be
adjudicated and decided in the above suit only. Hence,
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the
offence under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC is clear abuse of
process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the vendors of the accused
No.1 are not having any semblance of right in respect of the
property to execute the alleged Sale Deed in his favour, on the
ground that accused No.1's vendors have executed registered GPA
to an extent of Ac.6-02 guntas in Sy.Nos.529, 529/ అ, 530, 530/
అ, 531, 531/ అ, dated 16.11.1991, in favour of Abdul Ali and
Fateh Ali and handed over the possession authorizing them to
develop the said land into residential plots and also authorized
them to alienate the same by receiving sale consideration.
Pursuant to the same, GPA holders developed the above land along
with neighbouring land after obtaining approved layout from the
competent authorities, converted the above land and other land
into 600 plots in the name of New Green City colony between 1991-
1996 and they alienated the same to several individuals by way of
registered documents.
5.2. He further submitted that the original owners cancelled GPA,
dated 16.11.1991, unilaterally without issuing any notice to the
GPA holders and therefore, the alleged cancellation of GPA, dated
20.06.1995, is not valid under law. The vendors of accused No.1
have not taken possession from the GPA holders through process
of Court. Admittedly, the possession is with the GPA holders and
subsequent purchasers.
5.3. He further submitted that the petitioner and other accused
with a dishonest intention to defeat the rights of the purchasers,
who purchased the property from the GPA holder of original
owners, created alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018,
with wrong survey number 529/అ and is claiming rights over the
property belonging to the son of respondent No.2 under the guise
of the above said alleged Sale Deed with a dishonest intention,
especially, plot bearing No.380 is covered by Sy.No.529 but not
Sy.No.529/ అ or 529/ ఆ or 530/ అ.
5.4. He also submitted that the petitioner and other accused have
also committed the similar offences and Crime No.895 of 2022 is
pending. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer after
conducting investigation filed final report. LWs.2 and 3, who are
neighbouring plot owners, specifically stated in their statements,
which were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., that son of
respondent No.2 is the owner of the property and the petitioner
and other accused are not having any rights over the said property.
5.5. He further submitted that the petitioner basing upon the
pendency of the civil suit, is not entitled to seek for quashing the
proceedings, especially there are specific allegations levelled
against the petitioner that he along with other accused persons
tried to interfere the possession of respondent No.2 and also tried
to claim rights over the property of son of respondent No.2 and the
same has to be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial.
Therefore, the criminal petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed.
5.6 In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 has relied upon the following judgments;
i) Md.Allauddin Khan v. The State of Bihar 1;
ii) Dr. A. Chandrasekhar v. The State of Telangana 2;
iii) Dr. Vijay Anand Reddy v. N.Shashank Reddy and
another (Crl.P.No.4586 and 8621 of 2014 of this
Court);
iv) Bedide Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana
(Crl.P.No.10773, 10765, 11525, 11700 and 11701 of
2022 of this Court);
v) Gaddam Laxmaiah and others v. The Commissioner
and Inspector General 3;
vi) Mohd. Baktyaruddin v. Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd and
17 others (Writ Appeal No.611 of 2017 of this Court);
and
vii) Mr.P.Venkata Ravi Kishore v. M/s. JMR Developers
Pvt. Ltd. (CCCA No.111 and 112 of 2021 of this
Court).
1 (2019) 6 SCC 107
2 AIR Online 2021 TEL 72
3 (2018) 1 ALD 532 (DB)
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that respondent No.2 claiming that his son
purchased the property bearing Plot No.380 to an extent of 200
square yards in Sy.No.529 through Registered Sale Deed bearing
document No.5842 of 2016, dated 27.06.2016 from Pushpalatha,
who purchased the said property from Abdul Ali and Fateh Ali, who
are the GPA holders of P.Ramulu, Sathaiah and P.Srinivas, and
since then he has been in possession of the said property and also
constructed a compound wall. Whereas accused No.1 is claiming
rights over the property bearing Plot No.380 to an extent of 200
square yards in Sy.Nos.529/అ, 529/ఆ and 530/అ basing upon the
registered Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018.
7. It is not in dispute that originally P.Ramulu, Sathaiah and
P.Srinivas are owners of the land to an extent of Ac.6-02 guntas
situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District covered by Sy.Nos.529, 529/అ, 530, 530/అ, 531 and
531/అ and they have jointly executed registered GPA bearing
document No.2223 of 1991, dated 16.11.1991 in favour of Abdul
Ali and Fateh Ali for development of the said land into residential
house plots and given possession and also authorization to them
for entering into the sale transactions. Pursuant to the same, the
said GPA holders have obtained approved layout bearing
No.3020/MP2/HUDA/02, dated 20.08.1992, and they have
converted the land into residential plots, developed the same in the
name of New Green City colony and they alienated the property to
several individuals by executing registered documents.
8. There are specific allegations made in the complaint that
accused No.1, petitioner along with other accused with a dishonest
intention submitted documents mentioning Sy.Nos.529/అ, 529/ఆ
and 530/అ and got it registered vide Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018,
and basing upon the said document, claiming the property of son
of respondent No.2, covered by Sy.No.529.
9. After perusal of the final report and statements of the
witnesses i.e. LWs.2 and 3, who are neighboring plot owners and
the independent witnesses, they specifically stated in their
statements that the plot bearing No.380 belongs to LW.1 and his
son, accused No.1, the petitioner along with other accused are
causing disturbance. The property belongs to the son of
respondent No.2. Accused No.1 is claiming rights over the
property basing on the false documents by misrepresenting the
survey number. The final report also reveals that the petitioner
and other accused except accused No.1 were also involved in
similar offence vide Crime No.895 of 2022 was registered for the
offences under Sections 420 of IPC by the Police, Rajendra Nagar
and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed
final report and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2654 of 2022
and the same is pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil
Judge-cum-XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga
Reddy District at Rajendranagar. There are specific allegations
levelled against the petitioner that he along with other accused
trying to interfere with the possession of the property of son of
respondent No.2, threatened respondent No.2 with dire
consequences and accused Nos.1 to 8 have colluded with an
intention of criminal mind set intentionally cheated respondent
No.2 and several others by registering documents at SRO,
Rajendranagar with wrong survey numbers, which itself shows
that there is dishonest intention on his part from the inception.
Even according to the petitioner, accused No.1 is claiming the very
same property, which was covered under the registered Sale Deed
of son of respondent No.2.
10. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that original owners namely P.Ramulu, Sathaiah
and P.Srinivas revoked the GPA by way of Cancellation Deed,
bearing No.373 of 1995, dated 26.06.1995 and Pushpalatha has
purchased the property from GPA holders in the year 1996 and
from her, son of respondent No.2 has purchased the said property
in the year 2016 and the same is invalid under law, the learned
counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the GPA is unilaterally
cancelled without issuing any notice to the GPA holders and the
same is not binding and not valid as the original owners have not
taken possession of the property from GPA holders through
process of law are concerned, whether the cancellation of GPA
through document dated 20.06.1995 is valid or not, this Court is
not inclined to deal with the above said contentions raised by the
respective parties on the ground that the dispute in the present
case is very limited that the allegations made against the petitioner
is that he along with accused No.1 and other accused with a
dishonest intention to claim the property of the son of respondent
No.2 brought the registered Sale Deed by changing the Sy.No.529
to Sy.Nos.529/అ, 529/ఆ and 530/అ and cheated her and whether
the said allegations attracts the ingredients for the offence under
Sections 420 and 506 of IPC or not. The precedents relied upon by
the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Gaddam Laxmaiah
supra, Mohd. Baktyaruddin supra, and Mr.P.Venkata Ravi Kishore
supra are also pertaining to unilateral cancellation of the document.
11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the nature of allegations levelled in the
complaint is civil in nature and a civil case is pending
between the parties and therefore, continuation of the
criminal proceedings is clear abuse of process of law, is
concerned, there are specific allegations levelled against
the petitioner that he along with other accused is trying to
interfere with the possession of the said property of son of
respondent No.2 by changing the Sy.No.529 to
Sy.Nos.529/అ, 529/ఆ and 530/అ and also threatened
respondent No.2 with dire consequences. It is trite law
that mere pendency of the civil case is not a ground to
seek quashing of the crime, especially allegations made in
the complaint about dishonest intention.
12. In Md. Allauddin Khan supra, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the High Court cannot quash proceedings
by treating the matter as a civil dispute or by evaluating
contradictions at the Section 482 stage. In Dr. Vijay Anand
Reddy supra, the High Court of Telangana reiterated that
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be
exercised sparingly and not to short-circuit statutory
remedies or prematurely end criminal proceedings. In Dr.
A. Chandrasekhar supra, the High Court of Telangana
reaffirmed that during investigation the High Court cannot
assess the truthfulness of allegations and may quash only
in rare cases to prevent injustice. In Bedide Yadagiri supra,
the High Court of Telangana held that the presence of civil
elements does not justify quashing where the complaint
discloses cognizable offences, and such petitions lack
merit.
13. In the present case, the material available on record
prima facie indicates a dishonest intention and criminal
intimidation on the part of the petitioner, as he along with
other accused brought several Sale Deeds into existence
by altering the survey number from 529 to Sy.Nos.529/అ,
529/ఆ and 530/అ, thereby creating a cloud over the son of
respondent No.2's title. Such conduct, coupled with the
allegations of cheating, manipulation and criminal
intimidation, clearly discloses cognizable offences and
cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the dispute
has civil elements. Consequently, the present case falls
well within the parameters where criminal proceedings
cannot be quashed at the threshold.
14. It is relevant to mention that in K.Jagadish v. Udaya
Kumar G.S. 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the
well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give
rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that
availing civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal
prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like
Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. 5 and Trisuns Chemical
Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal 6, to reiterate that criminal
proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil
dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi
Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil
proceedings does not justify quashing criminal
proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a
prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that
many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial
or financial transactions, and such a "civil profile" does
not strip the act of its "criminal outfit." Ultimately, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the High Court
had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings, stressing
that criminal cases must proceed as per the Cr.P.C. and
4 (2020) 14 SCC 552
5 (2002) 1 SCC 555
6 (1999) 8 SCC 686
cannot be halted solely due to parallel civil litigation,
regardless of the status or authority of the civil forum.
15. In S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka 7 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that while civil and
criminal proceedings may, in law, proceed simultaneously,
a criminal prosecution can be sustained only where there
is a clear presence of criminal intent at the inception of
the transaction.
16. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sau.
Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be
exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution,
only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of
justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or
stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the
allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not
disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on
hand does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of rare
case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7 2025 SCC OnLine SC1575
8 (2019) 14 SCC 350
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2960 of 2022.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find
any grounds to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner in C.C. No.2960 of 2022 on the file of the XIV
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga
Reddy District at Rajendranagar.
18. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
However, taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner is a Government employee, his presence in C.C.
No.2960 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, is
dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically
required during the course of trial, subject to the
condition that the petitioner shall represent through his
counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of
non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific dates so
fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court
is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with
law. It is needless to observe that any of the observations
made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding
this case.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications,
if any, pending in this petition stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 26.11.2025
pgp
