Telangana High Court
Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Telangana on 18 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1343 OF 2021
% Dated 18.09.2025
# Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by G. Madhusudhan Rao
and two others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court at Hyderabad
and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.T. Chandra Sehkhar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Gaddam Srinivas (R.2)
Mr. M. Vevekananda Reddy
Assistant Public Prosecutor
(R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2023) 3 SCC 423
2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948
3. 2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC)
4. (2015) 6 SCC 287
5. 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 447
6. (1989) 2 SCC 132
7. (2003) 4 SCC 139
8. (2020) 14 SCC 552
9. (2015) 3 SCC 424
10. (2019) 14 SCC 350
11. (2019) 20 SCC 539
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1343 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.17248 of 2019 on the file of the XII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') by
setting aside the orders, dated 19.02.2020, in
Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2019passed by the learned I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed a private
complaint on 13.04.2017 on the file of the XII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad,
stating that petitioner No.1, Grandhe Developers Private
Limited, being represented by its Directors, i.e., petitioner
Nos. 2 and 3, entered into an agreement of sale with him on
12.03.2013 for the sale of open plots for a total sale
consideration of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. At the time of the
agreement, an amount of Rs.91,55,000/- was paid as
advance and the agreement was reduced into writing at the
Registrar Office of the company situated at Narayanaguda,
Hyderabad. Subsequently, he paid further amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- on 13.03.2013, Rs.10,00,000/- on
15.03.2013 and Rs.5,45,000/- on 03.04.2013, totalling Rs.
22,45,000/- through RTGS to petitioner No.2. As per the
terms of the agreement, the balance amount of
Rs.73,45,000/- was to be paid within eight months and the
final balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid at the
time of registration of the plots. On the instructions of
petitioner Nos.2 and 3, he transferred the balance
consideration directly to the accounts of accused Nos.4 to
11, who were described as sleeping partners of the
company. Despite receiving the entire sale consideration,
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 failed to perform their part of the
contract and on one pretext or another, deliberately
postponed the registration of the plots and they
misrepresented him that the plots were falling under FTL
and that they were in the process of getting the land
cleared by the Revenue Authorities. Believing their
assurance, he waited for several months. However, to his
utter surprise, he subsequently realized that the petitioners
and other accused persons had cheated him with a
dishonest intention from the inception. Having been vexed
with their evasive conduct, he issued a legal notice to the
petitioner and accused Nos.4 to 11. Accused Nos.6, 7, 9
and 11 were received the notices and the notices in respect
of remaining accused were returned un-served. In spite of
service of the legal notice, the petitioners and accused
Nos.4 to 11 did not come forward to execute the registered
sale deed in his favour. Left with no alternative, he
approached the Hon'ble Court and lodged the present
complaint against the petitioner and accused Nos.4 to 11
and the same was referred to the Central Crime Station,
Hyderabad. Pursuant to the same, Crime No.98 of 2017
was registered. The Investigating Officer after conducting
investigation filed a final report on 28.05.2018 referred the
matter as 'false'. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed protest
petition and the learned Magistrate taken cognizance
against the petitioner and issued summons, by its order
dated 19.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
filed Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 and the learned
I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad,
dismissed the same, by its order dated 19.02.2020. Hence,
this criminal petition.
3. Heard Mr. T. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for
respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have
not committed any offence. However, the petitioners were
falsely implicated as accused in the present crime. Even
according to the allegations made in the complaint, the
ingredients under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC
does not attract. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint
on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad on 13.04.2017 and the same was
referred to the police. Basing on the said complaint, Crime
No.98 of 2017 was registered. The Investigating Officer,
during the course of enquiry, sent the agreement of sale
dated 12.03.2013 to the Forensic Science Laboratory and
the Government of Telangana, Telangana State Forensic
Science Laboratories issued report dated 28.04.2021
opining that the person who wrote the red enclosed
signatures marked A1 to A5 and S1 to S30 did not write the
red enclosed signatures marked Q1 to Q6 and further, the
person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked A6 to
A10 and S31 to S60 did not write the red enclosed
signatures marked Q7 to Q9. Basing on the F.S.L. report,
the Investigating Officer filed the final report on
28.05.2018, stating that as 'false'. In the said final report,
the Investigating Officer specifically mentioned that the
document i.e., agreement of sale, dated 12.03.2013, is not
a genuine document, as it was prepared on 28.01.2013 on
a Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper, thereby rendering it
as a created and fabricated document. In spite of the
same, the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, based on the protest petition filed
by respondent No.2, took cognizance against the petitioners
and issued summons, through order dated 19.11.2019,
without considering the final report and without assigning
any reasons and the learned I Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge also without considering the memorandum
of grounds raised by the petitioners in the criminal revision
petition dismissed the same on 19.02.2020, simply
confirming the order of the learned Magistrate.
4.2. He also submitted that the petitioners never received
any amount from respondent No.2 nor cheated him, as
alleged in the complaint. Hence, the ingredients under
Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC do not attract. He
further submitted that petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint
against respondent No.2 and the same was registered as
Crime No.26 of 2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and the
Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the
final report and the same was taken cognizance and
numbered it as C.C.No.9582 of 2021 and the said case is
pending before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
4.3. He further submitted that basing upon the very same
alleged agreement of sale, respondent No.2 had filed a suit,
namely, O.S.No.223 of 2023 on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at
Malkajgiri, seeking specific performance of agreement of
sale and the said suit is pending. Hence, continuation of
criminal proceedings basing upon the fabricated document
is clear abuse of the process of law.
4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
following judgments:
1. Deepak Gaba and others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another 1;
2. Thiyagarajan Anjayampati Sivaswamy
v. The State of Telangana
(Crl.P.No.3651 of 2023);
3. Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of
Maharashtra and another 2;
4. Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and
others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another 3; and
5. Priyanka Srivastava and another v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another 4.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent
No.2
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that petitioner
No.1 is a private limited company and petitioner Nos.2 and
3, who are husband and wife respectively, are the Directors
(2023) 3 SCC 423
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948
2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC)
(2015) 6 SCC 287
of petitioner No.1 company. The petitioners entered into an
agreement of sale, dated 12.03.2013, with respondent No.2
and they agreed to sell the open plots for a sum of
Rs.1,70,00,000/- and respondent No.2 has paid an amount
of Rs.1,65,00,000/- on various dates towards the sale
consideration and he has to pay balance sale consideration
of Rs.5,00,000/- only. In spite of receiving a substantial
amount towards sale consideration, the petitioners failed to
execute the registered sale deed, On the contrary, with
dishonest intention to cheat respondent No.2, they sold
some of the plots to third parties. He further submitted
that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 13.04.2017.
However, at the instance of the petitioners, the
Investigating Officer, without properly conducting a proper
and fair investigation, filed the final report referring the
case as 'false'.
5.2. Aggrieved thereby respondent No.2 filed a protest
petition. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn
statement of respondent No.2 as PW.1 and PW.2 and after
going through the documents, filed by respondent No.2 i.e.,
Exs.P.1 to P.13, took cognizance against the petitioners and
rightly issued summons, through order dated 19.11.2019.
He further submitted that learned Sessions Judge by giving
cogent reasons dismissed the revision petition holding that
the real facts as to whether there were any transactions
between respondent No.2 and the petitioners under
agreement of sale will come into light only on conducting
full-fledged trial, by its order dated 19.02.2020.
5.3. He further submitted that the allegations made by the
petitioners that the stamp paper is a fabricated one is not
true and correct. In fact, the stamp paper had purchased
by petitioner No.2 only on the name of respondent No.2 and
no prudent man will purchase the fabricated stamp paper
by paying huge amount to the petitioners as sale
consideration. He further submitted that the petitioners,
since inception, are having ill-intention to cheat respondent
No.2. Therefore, the petitioners, even after receiving the
sale consideration, sold some plots to third parties in spite
of existence of agreement of sale between the petitioners
and respondent No.2.
5.4. He further submitted that respondent No.2 paid an
amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by
way of cash and RTGS and a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- to
accused Nos.4 to 11 by way of RTGS, and the petitioners
have received total amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/-.
Respondent No.2 filed RTGS receipts before the learned
Magistrate along with the protest petition. The learned
Magistrate after due consideration of the statements of
PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.13, specifically held that a
prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and
accordingly took cognizance against the petitioners.
5.5. He further submitted that subsequent to the learned
Magistrate taking cognizance, petitioner No.2 filed a
complaint against respondent No.2 basing upon the alleged
F.S.L. report. The Investigating Officer, without properly
conducting an investigation, filed the charge sheet. In the
said case, respondent No.2 filed discharge application
seeking to discharge him in the said proceedings and the
same is pending. He also submitted that respondent No.2
filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
against the petitioners and others on 16.11.2022. The
pendency of the civil suit is not a ground for seeking to
quash the proceedings. There are no grounds to interfere
with the orders passed by the learned XII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was confirmed
by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Hyderabad, and the criminal petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
following judgments:
1. Thota Papi Reddy and others v. Gudalli
Yellaiah land and others 5;
2. M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka and another 6; and
3. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and others 7.
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 lodged a private
complaint against the petitioners and others on 13.04.2017
before the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate. Basing on the said complaint, the learned
Magistrate referred the matter to the police. Accordingly,
the police registered Crime No.98 of 2017 on 28.06.2018 for
the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC.
The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed
2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 447
(1989) 2 SCC 132
(2003) 4 SCC 139
the final report on 28.05.2018 referred the matter as 'false'.
On 13.11.2018, respondent No.2 filed protest petition
invoking the provisions under Section 202 read with 151 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the
Cr.P.C.'). Along with the protest petition, he filed
documents. The learned Magistrate after going through the
sworn statements of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.13 held
that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and
took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners, by
its order dated 19.11.2019.
7. It is relevant to extract the order passed by the
learned Magistrate, which reads as follows:
"By considering the sworn statement of
complainant i.e., PW1, PW2 and Ex.P1 to P13
found a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Hence cognizance of offence taken against A1 to
A3 only for the offence U/s.420, 406 and 120(B)
of IPC.
As there is no prima facie case made out
against the other accused, Crl.M.P. is dismissed.
Registered as C.C.No.17248 of 2019 against
the A1 to A3. Issue summons to A1 to A3. Call
on 11.02.2020."
Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners filed
Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 invoking the provisions of
Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, and the learned
Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition on
19.02.2020 holding that the main grievance of the
petitioner is that Ex.P.1 was fabricated one, whereas
respondent No.2 claims that he paid huge amount by way
of cash and also through RTGS in respect of transaction
pursuant to Ex.P.1 and the real facts as to whether there
were any transaction between the petitioners and
respondent No.2 under agreement of sale-Ex.P.1 will come
into light after full-fledged trial and that no prejudice will
be caused to the petitioners as they will be given an
opportunity to cross-examine respondent No.2.
8. The core contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners before this Court is that as per the Forensic
Science Laboratory report dated 28.04.2021, the agreement
of sale executed on Hundred Rupees non-judicial stamp
paper and the said stamp paper itself is a fabricated
document and basing upon the said fabricated/created
document, he is not entitled to prosecute the petitioner.
Whereas, the specific case of respondent No.2 is that he
had paid substantial amounts pursuant to the agreement
of sale by way of cash and also through RTGS and RTGS
receipts and other documents are enclosed along with the
protest petition and the petitioners with a dishonest
intention cheated respondent No.2 and sold some of the
plots to the third parties.
9. Whether respondent No.2 has paid any amount to the
petitioners or to the other persons at the instance of the
petitioners, whether the amounts transferred through
RTGS pertaining to the agreement of sale dated
12.03.2013, whether agreement of sale and other
documents relied upon by respondent No.2 are genuine or
not, are disputed facts and the same cannot be adjudicated
by this Court in the criminal petition and the same has to
be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial only.
10. It is pertinent to mention that respondent No.2 filed a
suit in O.S.No.223 of 2023 seeking specific performance of
agreement of sale dated 12.03.2013 against the petitioners
and other defendants on 16.11.2022, much after filing of
the private complaint dated 13.04.2017, against the
petitioners. It is trite law that mere pendency of civil cases
between the parties does not bar to invoke criminal
jurisdiction provided the allegations disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence. In the case on hand,
the allegations made in the suit in O.S.No.223 of 2023 as
well as allegations made in C.C.No.17248 of 2019 are
different and distinctive. Moreover, petitioner No.2 filed a
complaint and the same was numbered as C.C.No.9582 of
2021, which is subsequent to the filing of private complaint
by respondent No.2.
11. In Deepak Gaba supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that in the absence of factual allegations establishing
the essential ingredients of Section 405 IPC such as
entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or conversion in
violation of law or contract a mere monetary dispute or an
allegedly wrong demand does not constitute an offence
under Sections 405/406 IPC. It further emphasized that
criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as
instruments of harassment or vengeance, and when
allegations in the complaint and pre-summoning evidence,
even if accepted on their face, do not disclose the
commission of an offence or are absurd and inherently
improbable, the High Court must exercise its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash such
proceedings.
12. In Thiyagarajan Aniayampati Sivaswamy supra, the
Telangana High Court quashed the cognizance order of the
Special Judge for Economic Offences on the ground that it
was cryptic and passed without application of mind. The
Court reiterated that issuing process and summoning an
accused is a serious judicial act which requires the
Magistrate/Special Court to record satisfaction, even
briefly, that a prima facie case exists. Mere mechanical or
bald orders stating that cognizance is taken are
insufficient. Relying on various Supreme Court precedents,
the Court held that non-speaking orders at the stage of
cognizance burden courts with unnecessary trials and
cause undue harassment to accused. Directions were
issued to trial courts in Telangana to ensure that orders
under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C., cognizance on charge
sheets, protest petitions, and committals must briefly
reflect judicial satisfaction. Consequently, the impugned
order was set aside, with liberty to the Special Judge to
pass a fresh, reasoned order.
13. In Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when a petition seeks quashing of
an FIR together with the charge-sheet and the cognizance-
taking order, if any, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ("BNSS") is invoked, the High
Court (or Division Bench) has jurisdiction to entertain and
mould such relief, so long as the requisite facts are on
record and the court is satisfied that quashing is warranted
in the circumstances.
14. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. supra, the Supreme
Court held that if the complainant's grievance is merely
that a sum of money is due and payable, the proper remedy
is to file a civil suit for recovery and not a criminal
complaint alleging cheating or criminal breach of trust. The
Court noted that in that case no civil suit had been filed
and even the period of limitation for such recovery
appeared to have expired. The Court further emphasised,
while concluding, that despite the replacement of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, courts have continued to show a casual approach in
failing to appreciate the fine distinction between the
offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
15. In Priyanka Srivastava supra, the Supreme Court
cautioned against the routine and irresponsible filing of
applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was held that
such applications must be supported by an affidavit duly
sworn by the applicant to ensure accountability, and the
Magistrate, in appropriate cases, may verify the truth and
veracity of the allegations. The Court observed that many
such applications are filed mechanically to harass
individuals, including those discharging statutory duties,
and stressed that criminal courts cannot be misused as
instruments for settling scores.
16. In Thota Papi Reddy supra, the erstwhile High Court
of Andhra Pradesh, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in India Carat (P) Ltd. supra, held that
even if the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C
concludes that no case is made out, the Magistrate is not
bound by such conclusion and can, in exercise of powers
under Section 190(1)(b), independently apply his mind to
the material collected during investigation, take cognizance,
and issue process against the accused, without being
obliged to follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C.
17. In Roshanlal Agarwal supra, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that at the stage of issuing process under
Section 204 CrPC, the Magistrate is only required to be
satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding,
and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. It
was further clarified, following U.P. Pollution Control Board v.
Mohan Meakins Ltd. and Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B., that
there is no legal requirement for the Magistrate to record
detailed reasons while issuing summons, and the process
cannot be quashed merely because the order taking
cognizance is not a speaking order.
18. It is relevant to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya
Kumar G.S. 8, 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 a civil remedy does not bar the initiation of
criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on
precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and
Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal, 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
(2020) 14 SCC 552
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." The
Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and
Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that
quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be
limited to rare and exceptional cases. It emphasized that
just because a transaction involves a commercial or
monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule out
criminal intent or proceedings. Ultimately, the 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 cannot be halted solely due
to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or
authority of the civil forum.
19. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar supra, 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 is not the rarest of rare cases to
exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.17248 of 2019.
20. It is relevant to mention that in the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepka Gupta 9,
it was held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the
Magistrate is required only to see whether a prima facie
case is made out and he is not required to evaluate the
sufficiency of evidence or undertake a detailed inquiry into
the merits. If the Magistrate, at the stage of cognizance,
enters into analysis the evidence or evaluates the defence,
it would amount to premature adjudication, which is
impermissible in law.
21. It is pertinent to mention that in Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra 10, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that at the stage of cognizance and summoning,
the Magistrate is required only to ascertain whether a
prima facie case exists for proceeding against the accused;
(2015) 3 SCC 424)
(2019) 14 SCC 350
he is not required to evaluate the merits or sufficiency of
the material, nor to determine whether it would ultimately
lead to conviction.
22. It is also relevant to mention that in State of Gujarat
v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta 11, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that at the stage of cognizance on a police
report, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that
sufficient ground exists to proceed, and not to apply a strict
standard of proof or consider possible defences.
Interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction by
examining merits at this nascent stage was erroneous.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court
was set aside and the Magistrate's order taking cognizance
of the supplementary charge-sheet and issuing summons
was restored, with a direction for the accused to appear
and the trial to proceed in accordance with law.
23. In plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court
specifically held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the
Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that sufficient
grounds exists for proceeding further and to see whether a
prima facie case is made out against the accused and the
(2019) 20 SCC 539
Magistrate is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of
evidence or undertake a detailed enquiry into the merits of
the case, nor is it necessary to examine whether the
material would ultimately result in conviction.
24. It is already stated supra, the learned Magistrate after
going through the statements of PWs.1 and 2 and the
documents which are enclosed along with protest petition
i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.13, specifically held that there is a prima
face case against the petitioners and accordingly took
cognizance. The learned Sessions Judge, upon due
consideration confirmed the said order by giving specific
reasons and dismissed the Crl.R.P.
25. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra, this Court
does not find any illegality, irregularity or procedural
impropriety warranting interference with the order passed
by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Hyderabad in Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 dated
19.02.2020, confirming the order dated 19.11.2019 passed
by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, or any ground to quash C.C.No.17248 of 2019
to exercise the powers conferred under Sections 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be dismissed.
26. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
However, the presence of the petitioners in C.C.No.17248 of
2019 is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically
required subject to the condition that the petitioners shall
represent through their counsel on each and every date of
hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioners on
the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for their
appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the
matter, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the
trial Court shall decide the matter on own merits,
uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order
or in the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2019 as well
as the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned
Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.2600 of 2019.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:18 .09.2025
L.R. copy to be marked
mar
Note: Issue C.C. in a week.
