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
| 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
K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.
Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal
Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
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.
The presence of civil proceedings does not negate the possibility of criminal prosecution where allegations indicate criminal intent and actions, confirming that criminal and civil cases may proceed ....
The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of the court or if quashing the proceedings would serve ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.