The court quashed proceedings against the accused under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, determining that the allegations lacked essential elements required for prosecution.

ORDER :

Anil Kumar Jukanti, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner/accused No.3 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.530 of 2022 on the file of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Maheshwaram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 , 420, 506 r/w 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the material on record.

3. Notice was served on respondent No.2 on 12.02.2025. A memo is filed vide U.S.R.No.16122 of 2025 along with a track consignment copy of with Event Details For:RN068093694IN, and it is reflected against the caption ‘Current Status’ as ‘Item delivered’ (Addressee). None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, complainant.

4. FIR came to be registered on 16.02.2022 on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein. It is the specific case of respondent No.2 that her husband (died on 01.06.2020) was owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 gts. in Sy.No.237 and Ac.1.29 gts. in Sy.No.238/A1/1 at Madhapur Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. It is averred in the complaint that complainant’s husband and one Dappu Yadaiah approached petitioner/accused No.3 for financial help of Rs.1,05,000/- in the year 2008. That accused No.3 with 2 others took complainant’s husband and his friend to one M.Ramachandra Reddy @ Gangaram, a resident of Jubilee Hills. M.Ramachandra Reddy requested complainant’s husband and Dappu Yadaiah to execute registered AGPA as security, the parcel of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts. (0.11 gts., and 1.29 gts.). It is also stated in the complaint that once the loan amount is repaid, the AGPA should be cancelled.

6. An amount of Rs.61,000/- and Rs.44,000/- was taken by Dappu Yadaiah and complainant’s husband respectively. AGPA bearing No.10074 of 2008, dated 08.12.2008, was executed and registered on the file of Sub- Registrar, Maheshwaram. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant’s husband and accused No.3 and two others, entered into an agreement on 21.02.2009. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.46,000/- (with interest) was paid to M.Ramachandra Reddy on 27.01.2009. That this fact of receiving the amount is endorsed in the pocket note book of complainant’s husband. That on the very next day, Dappu Yadaiah paid an amount of Rs.89,000/- (with interest) to M.Ramachandra Reddy, but no receipt was issued.

7. It is averred in the complaint that in spite of receiving amounts, AGPA holder did not cancel the AGPA as agreed. It is further averred that one A.Nirmala, benami of M.Ramachandra Reddy, executed a registered sale deed in favour of Krishna Rao, that Krishna Rao managed the Revenue authorities and obtained pattedar passbook. It is also averred that complainant’s husband approached Tahsildar and gave detailed explanation to Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal and that Tahsildar advised the complainant to approach the competent Court of Law. The main grievance in the complaint is that accused colluded to knock away the property of complainant and that the accused threatened her family with dire consequences if they do not enter into a settlement. Hence, the complaint. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.3 submitted that complainant’s husband and his friend needed financial help and sought help of