SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1480

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
D.Bhaskara Rao S/o D.Thoudu - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.11621 of 2022
Decided On : 26-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Ram Reddy
For the Respondent: Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, Asst.P.P., Mr.Goverdhan Venu

The court ruled that ongoing civil litigation does not preclude criminal prosecutions where sufficient evidence indicates dishonest intent constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petition filed by the accused to quash C.C.No.2654 of 2022 for offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of IPC - The Court emphasized that mere civil disputes do not preclude criminal liability when sufficient allegations exist to indicate dishonest intention, leading to cheating - The allegations disclosed a prima facie criminal offence and thus cannot be dismissed simply due to ongoing civil litigation. (Paras 12-17)

(B) Cheating - Ingredients for establishing offence under Section 420 IPC - The Court reaffirmed that the presence of criminal intent coupled with misrepresentation can give rise to criminal proceedings even alongside civil claims. (Paras 7, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accused, claimed ownership of a plot through a sale deed while the complainant claimed rights over the same property under a previous deed. The lawsuit also indicated ongoing civil litigation over the property.

Findings of Court:
The court found evidence supporting that the allegations against the petitioner demonstrated a dishonest intention and sufficient grounds to proceed with criminal charges.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations amounted to an offence under Section 420 IPC and if the civil proceedings constituted a ground for quashing the criminal complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the existence of a civil dispute does not negate the potential for criminal culpability, particularly when allegations reveal dishonest intent in property dealings.

Result: Criminal petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background involves property disputes and complaints. (Para 3)
2. petitioner argues false implication in property claims. (Para 4)
3. respondent contends rightful ownership through gpa. (Para 5)
4. court examines ownership claims and allegations of dishonesty. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
5. civil suits do not bar criminal proceedings. (Para 10 , 11)
6. court emphasizes the need for criminal intent in property disputes. (Para 12 , 13)
7. supreme court principles on criminal and civil proceedings. (Para 14 , 15)
8. inherent powers under section 482 must not be abused. (Para 16)
9. court declines to quash proceedings against the petitioner. (Para 17)
10. criminal petition dismissed with terms. (Para 18)

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

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.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.2654 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.Goverdhan 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 18.05.2022, the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he purchased a Plot No.379 in Sy.No.529 to an extent of 200 square yards on his wife's name in New Green City, Budvel vide Sale Deed No.1392 of 1997, SRO, Rajendranagar in the year 1997. Thereafter, he obtained LRS proceedings No.LRS/1575/CR-6/GHMC/2008, dt.05.09.2008, and is in peaceful possession and constructed a compound wall. On 23.08.2018, D.Bhaskara Rao, who is the petitioner/accused No.1 sent a Court notice to him through Advocate Pinnu Nagaraju and told that the above plot No.379 is purchased by him vide Sale Deed No.9161 of 2018 of SRO, Rajendranagar executed by V.Narayana Reddy, GPA holder to V.Mohan Reddy, M.Jaihind Reddy and V.Anasuya with Sy.No.529/అ. It was observed that accused No.1 has filed a suit in O.S. No.1867 of 2018 on the file of the VII Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and on 05.05.2022, accused No.1 has fixed the name boards and took somebody to the site to sell the plot to them and harassing him and his wife and requested to take action. Based on the said complaint, the Crime No.875 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 of IPC and after conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 420 of IPC before the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and issued summons to the petitioner and other accused in C.C. No.2654 of 2022. Hence, the present Criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2654 of 2022.

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 and in the charge sheet, the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property to an extent of 200 square yards in plot No.379 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 he had purchased 200 square yards in Sy.No.5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top