Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SUJANA
Avvaru Ramakrishna – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of complaint and allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's consideration of petitioner's arguments. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding procedural irregularities and membership issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. proceedings quashed as abuse of process. (Para 8) |
| 5. final order quashing the proceedings. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
K. SUJANA, J.
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.885 of 2024 on the file of X-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Rachakonda, Medchal District. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the offences alleged against them are under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’).
2. The facts of the case are that the defacto-complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that he is the son-in-law of late M. Shyamala Devi who was a member of Sri Bhavana Rushi Co-operative House Building Society (for short ‘Society’) with membership No.2248. The object of the Society was to allot plots to its members in the land available to
The proceedings against the petitioners were quashed as no criminal wrongdoing was established, indicating the dispute was civil in nature under cooperative society regulations.
Term “criminal conspiracy” is defined under Section 120A of the IPC as to mean when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act with is not illegal by illegal mean....
Allegations of forgery and cheating under IPC Sections 467, 468, and 420 were not substantiated, necessitating resolution of boundary disputes in civil court.
Serious allegations in criminal cases require a trial, while vague claims against some petitioners may lead to quashing of proceedings.
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
No criminal intent or breach of trust found in execution of sale deeds; FIR quashed due to abuse of process after extensive delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
