Continuation of proceedings in criminal matters is an abuse of process when allegations are purely civil in nature.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2590 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhupalapally, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused persons offered to sell agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts, comprising Ac.0.20 gts in and Ac.0.20 gts in  situated in one compact block at Kompelly Revenue Village (formerly within the limits of Pulluri Ramaiahpalle Gram Panchayat, now within the Bhupalapally Town Nagar Panchayat limits, Bhupalapally Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District), for valid sale consideration. The complainant accepted the offer. However, after receiving the sale consideration, the accused persons failed to execute a valid sale deed and instead threatened the complainant with dire consequences if she or her family members approached the said property or demanded return of the amount. Hence, the present complaint.

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 13.10.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2025, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 and the same was returned with a postal endorsement ‘addressee refused to receive the same’ and filed memo before the Registry on 22.09.2025 vide USR No.104297 of 2025. He further submitted that as per Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1987, the refusal is deemed to be served. However, to give one more final opportunity to respondent No.2, posted to 27.10.2025. On 28.10.2025, at request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was posted to 03.11.2025. Today also, there is no representation for respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

4. Heard Mr.B.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offences. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the nature of the allegations against the petitioners is purely civil in nature. He further submitted that the petitioners are the absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts in and situated at Kompally Revenue Village (herein after referred to as ‘subject property’), and they executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.2159/2016, dated 18.07.2016 in favour of respondent No.2. The petitioners have neither forged nor fabricated any documents, and therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted. Even as per the complaint, one Ms.Sadiq Sultana preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 10.02.2017 seeking cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners, though the said Sadiq Sultana has no right or interest over the subject property.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint on 12.10.2017, after a lapse of more than one year from the date of execution of the registered sale deed i.e., 18.07.2016. He further submitted that the pendency of revenue proceedings between the petitioners and one Ms.Sadiq Sultana does not give rise to any cause of action for respondent No.2 to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners. He further submitted that, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 21.06.2017, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Joint Collector, and the said revision petition was transfe