ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1425 of 2023 pending on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District for the offences punishable under Sections 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 403, 404, 406, 420, 426, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. The facts of the case are that the defacto complainant/2^nd [

respondent and the petitioner/accused are own brothers. Sheik Anwar and Smt. Zaheera Begum are the parents of petitioner and 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is the first son, Sheik Alias is the second son, petitioner is the third son and Zulekha Begum is the daughter. Except petitioner, the other brothers and sister of petitioner have settled in U.S.A. Petitioner is a medical practitioner and the parents lived with him till their demise during covid period. It is stated that there were house sites in the name of mother of petitioner. The father of petitioner and 2nd respondent were having joint account in SBI, Malakpet Branch vide account No.52027711995. Their father was having another account at Bank of Baroda, Ramanthapur Branch, Hyderabad. During covid-19 the parents of petitioner and 2^nd respondent got infected with Covid and were admitted in Owasi Hospitals and had long treatment, but succumbed to death. The petitioner’s father had withdrawn about Rs.15 Lakhs towards medical expenses, but they did not survive. Except the petitioner no other brothers or sister are in India and there was no financial assistance from them. It is also stated that as petitioner was taking care of his parents, the mother of the petitioner given oral Hiba on 02.08.2019 and declaration was sought from the other three children who were residing in U.S.A., and all of them have given their declaration. The 2nd respondent after the demise of their parents with an oblique motive, at the instance of his inlaws, lodged a false complaint alleging that the property purchased by their mother is a Matruka property and petitioner alone has no right over it and that in the joint account of 2^nd respondent and his father, a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs has been withdrawn by the petitioner, that he suspects the same in respect of other bank accounts also. Hence, lodged complaint for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, which was registered as FIR No.909 of 2021. The police have investigated the case and filed report stating that the dispute is civil in nature. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has filed suit vide O.S.No.485 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar for partition.

3. Aggrieved by the closure of FIR, the 2^nd respondent filed protest petition through his GPA holder on 08.11.2022. The learned Magistrate examined the GPA holder of 2nd respondent as Pw.1, his brother-in-law as Pw.2 and taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 66B, 66C, 66D of IT Act and Sections 403, 404, 406, 420, 426, 463, 464, 465, 468 and471 of IPC, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1425 of 2023.

4. Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.G.Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent.

5. The contention of learned Senior counsel is that though the final report is filed by the police stating that the allegations are civil in nature, taking cognizance is nothing but abuse of process of Court. The trial Court did not follow the procedure as he did not examine the complainant, but examined his GPA holder and his brother-in-law and taken cognizance of several offences under IT Act and IPC without there being any evidence. The GPA holder of the 2nd respondent has no right to represent in a criminal case, hence, the entir