Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 960
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.
G.Pradeep – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7424 of 2023
Decided On : 25-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. KIRAN MAYEE
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are fundamentally civil; specific and compelling allegations are required to proceed with criminal charges.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 350, 390, 388, 420, 403 and 34 - Petitioners sought to quash the FIR for offences allegedly connected to a civil dispute over a vehicle. The court ruled that criminal proceedings cannot be misused to solve civil disputes and there must be specific allegations demonstrating criminal intent. In the present case, most allegations were found to be civil in nature, with significant delays in filing. Therefore, proceedings were quashed against petitioners 1, 3, and 4, and upheld against petitioner 2 due to specific allegations of forceful vehicle seizure. (Paras 14-20)
Facts of the case:
The complainant and petitioner had a close relationship over several years contributing to familial business operations. Disputes arose over a car purchased for the complainant's benefit, which was later forcibly taken by one of the petitioners.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, quashing the case against certain petitioners while allowing it against another.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations warranted criminal proceedings or were merely an attempt to resolve civil disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that criminal liabilities cannot stem from disputes that are principally civil, emphasizing the necessity of specific allegations for prosecution.
Result: Criminal petition allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case are presented (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both parties (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of complaint details and evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. judicial principles regarding delay and civil context (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. criminal proceedings should not abuse civil disputes (Para 14) |
| 6. punit beriwala case distinct from present facts (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. continuation of proceedings analyzed by court (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. final order and decision of the court (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER:
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.44 of 2023 of Jogipet Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 350, 390, 388, 420 and 403 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).
2. Brief facts of the case:
Respondent No.2/de facto complainant and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 stayed together in Hyderabad from 2007 to 2010 and during their studies/employment, developed close friendship. Later, petitioner No.1 left for the United States. At the request of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 looked after his parents, assisted in their welfare, and supported their business activities including Blue Dart Courier Franchise (S.S. Experts), pallet business and other transactions. In 2014, a Volkswagen Vento car bearing No.AP 23 AM 6006 was purchased by petitioner No.1 in the name of respondent No.2 by availing loan from HDFC Bank for his family benefit. Later, in the year 2017, refinanced with Axis Bank, and respondent No.2 is continuing to pay EMIs and finally settled the matter before an Arbitrator in November 2021, thereby, he became owner of the vehicle. On 05.12.2020, the vehicle was forcibly taken away by petitioner No.2/accused No.2, at the instance of petitioner No.1, and it is still under the custody of the petitioners. When respondent No.2 demanded to return the vehicle, petitioner No.1 threatened him that he will file false cases, such as, drug case, murder case and dacoity case. Subsequently, the petitioners fabricated documents and misused the cheques of respondent No.2, which were kept in the car dashboard, and filed several false cases against respondent No.2 and his family, including civil suits i.e., O.S. No.161 of 2022 and O.S.No.59 of 2021, criminal complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act at Rajendranagar, Calcutta and Aurangabad, and arbitration proceedings regarding the vehicle loan. On 26.12.2022, petitioner No.2 further misused respondent No.2’s cheque No.001466 for Rs.12,00,000/-, which he immediately stopped through ICICI Bank, but the cheque was returned marked as “Funds Insufficient”. After that, petitioner No.2 has threatened him to eliminate him and his family members, if he did not pay the cheque amount. Despite lodging a report with Jogipet Police Station on 06.02.2023 and approaching DSP and Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy, no action has been taken. Hence, he filed a private complaint on the file of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet. Basing on the same, F.I.R.No. 44 of 2023 was registered on 13.03.2023 under the Sections 120B, 350, 390, 388, 420 and 403 read with 34 of the IPC.
3. Heard Mr. K. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mrs. K. Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J. Venugopal, 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 Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and respondent No.2 falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case to dissolve the disputes which are pending between him and the petitioners. Even according to the allegations made in the comp
