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) 2045

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
Prathipati Swathi and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana and Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 13763, 13735, 13740 of 2024
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 504 r/w 34 - Criminal proceedings alleged against Directors of companies for non-registration of plots as per MOU - It was determined that the dispute was civil in nature, with no dishonest intention present - Petitioner had valid title over the land; hence, allegations of cheating were not substantiated. (Paras 1, 4.1, 8.10)

(B) Criminal liability - Distinction between breach of contract and cheating - Mere breach of terms in an MOU does not constitute an offence under IPC unless dishonest intention is shown from inception. (Paras 8.7, 8.11)

Facts of the case:
The de facto complainant entered into an MOU with the petitioners for the sale of certain plots, but allegations arose regarding non-registration and alteration of boundaries, leading to criminal proceedings. (Paras 4.1 to 4.9)

Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioners acted within the terms of the MOU and that the dispute was merely civil, quashing the criminal proceedings against them. (Paras 8.1, 8.10)

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioners exhibited dishonest intent to constitute cheating and whether a civil matter had been improperly elevated to criminal proceedings. (Paras 8.10, 8.11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere allegations of non-compliance with contractual terms do not satisfy the requirements for a criminal offence under IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving dishonest intention from the outset. (Paras 8.6, 8.7)

Result: Criminal petitions allowed; proceedings quashed. (Para 9)

Table of Content
1. criminal petitions filed to quash proceedings. (Para 1 , 4)
2. court's analysis on contractual nature of dispute. (Para 3)
3. petitioners' defense and arguments against allegations. (Para 5 , 6)
4. absence of criminal intent and basis for quashing. (Para 8)
5. conclusion: criminal proceedings quashed. (Para 9)

ORDER :

1. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) (previously Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.185 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medak, registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’).

2. Since all the three criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.185 of 2024, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.13763 and 13740 of 2024 and Mr. Appasani Ram Dheeraj, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13735 of 2024; Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant in Crl.P.Nos.13763 and 13740 of 2024 and Mr. L.Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant in Crl.P.No.13735 of 2024; and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

4. The facts of the case:

4.1. The de facto complainant is engaged in real estate business and is the Managing Partner of Ira Infrastructure and Developers Company.

4.2. The de facto complainant, petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 and M/s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited and 15 others are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.52.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.209, 210, 211, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 243 of Kallakal Village, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District. They have jointly obtained permission from HMDA and developed a layout in the name of ‘Green Hub’.

4.3. Thereafter, a Partition Deed bearing document No.672 of 2022, dated 12.12.2022 was entered into by the 19 partners, in which, M/s. Prathipati Estates Private Limited represented by its authorized signatory petitioner-accused No.4, M/s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited represented by its authorized signatory petitioner-accused No.5 and petitioner-accused No.3, were allotted 17,765 square yards in Plot Nos.1, 83, 84, 85 and 104 in Sy.Nos.209/P, 210/P, 211/P, 231/P, 233/P, 234/P, 235/P, 236/P, 237/P, 238/P, 239/P, 240/P, 241/P, 242/P and 243/P situated at Kallakal Village, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Directors of M/s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited and M/s. Prathipati Estates Private Limited respectively and the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are their representatives.

4.4. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 agreed to sell their entire share of 17,765 square yards to the de facto complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.19,49,00,000/-. Accordingly, the de facto complainant’s Company has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 08.02.2023 with M/s. Prathipati Estates Private Limited represented by its authorized signatory petitioner-accused No.4, M/s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited represented by its authorized signatory petitioner-accused No.5 and petitioner-accused No.3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Party’), for the said extent, in the presence of elders.

4.5. As per the terms of the MOU, upon payment of the amount in five tranches, within (60) days, with a grace period of (15) days from the date of MOU, the plots of equal value shall be registered in favour of the de facto complainant. Additionally, it was also confirmed that amount of Rs.19,49,00,000/- was exclud

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