Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17637
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
K.Anjaneyulu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6431 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I.Ramesh
For the Respondents: Smt.Shalini Saxena
The court quashed FIR against the petitioner, finding no basis for accusations due to his promotion prior to the alleged misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 167, 464, 420 - SC/ST POA Act - Section 3(1)(f)(g) - Petition to quash FIR based on allegations of false registration of land title - Accused No.2’s promotion means he was not in position to execute registration - Court found allegations against accused No.2 to be false. (Paras 4, 9, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Nature of quashment - Court may quash proceedings if allegations lack merit, but investigations against other parties may continue. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused No.2, contended that FIR was filed against him, but he was promoted and transferred before the alleged offense. He claimed innocence and sought the quashing of the proceedings against him.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no strength in the allegations against the petitioner, confirming he was not in the position to manipulate the registration. The claim of the complainant was deemed false as it related to wrong accusations of registration while he was in a different office.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of accusations made against the petitioner regarding his role in the FIR, given his promotion and absence from the relevant office at the time of the alleged event.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled based on the facts of the case that the accusations against the petitioner were unfounded and thus the petition to quash was granted.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed and the FIR proceedings against accused No.2 quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's innocence and incorrect designation. (Para 1 , 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the complaint. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. key issues framed by the court. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's findings on the case details. (Para 6) |
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.2 seeking to quash the FIR No.110 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences under Sections 167 , 464, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST POA Act .
2. Heard the submissions of Sri I.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.
3. The allegations are under Sections 167 , 464, 420 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3(1)(f)(g) of SC/ST POA Act , the notice was served on the respondent No.2/de facto complainant through the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor at the address available but the notice is returned as ‘person left this address’. Hence, it is deemed service.
4. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the date of alleged offence is 25.08.2018 and that the FIR is registered on 18.02.2025. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner is no way concerned as to the registration as he was promoted and transferred to another office as on the date of alleged offence. He submitted that the petitioner got promoted and was not at all present in the said office as on the date of alleged issuance of ROR proceedings, therefore, the petitioner is an innocent person and he prayed to quash the proceedings against him.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders and has submitted that the petitioner herein is the Joint Sub-Registrar as on the date working at Mahaboobnagar District.
6. Perused the record.
7. The allegations of the complainant are that the complainant owned and possessed land admeasuring Ac.02-00 gts., in survey No.92 situated at Yenugonda Revenue Ward, Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal and District and that it is his ancestral property, having succeeded the same from his grandfather, who died in 1989. It is his case that, his father pre- deceased his grandfather and thus, the complainant is in peaceful possession of the said land. It is his case that the then Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal vide proceedings No.B/5529/2017, dated 29.12.2017 issued ROR proceedings in the names of Smt.Balamma and Smt.Hussainamma, who are no way concerned with the aforesaid land, without issuing any notice to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, he filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar and the RDO has passed the orders setting aside the orders of Tahsildar and directed him to restore the name of original pattedar by amending the entries in ROR. It is his case that even though the enquiry is pending before the Tahsildar, accused No.7 has approached accused Nos.1 and 2 and got the above said land registered in the name of his wife/accused N.6 and accused Nos.1 and 2 knowing fully well about the lack of title in favour of the said persons, have registered the documents, in collusion with accused Nos.6 and 7. The petitioner herein is accused No.2.
8. As per the proceedings dated 31.08.2018, the accused No.2/petitioner herein i.e. K.Anjaneyulu, who was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla has been promoted and posted as Joint Sub-Registrar-II at R.O., Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District and that he was supposed to join duty within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The alleged registration has taken place on 25.08.2018. Thus, the document dated 31.08.2018 reveals that accused No.2 was not the Sub-Registrar but he was the Senior Assistant in the Sub-Registrar Office at Jedcherla but the allegations of the complainant is that he was the Sub-Registrar at Mahaboobnagar and he got the registration done.
9. Thus
