Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17970
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J
A.3 – Appellant
Versus
Vanasthalipuram Police Station – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3593 AND 3597 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar, Sri Thoom Srinivas, Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy
Court quashed proceedings against property purchasers due to insufficient evidence of complicity in suicide or financial misconduct inherent in property transactions.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 108 r/w 3(5), 318(4), 316(2), 61(1) - Criminal petitions aimed at quashing proceedings where allegations of conspiracy and cheating are made against purchasers of property, found to lack foundation in the context of registered documents and suicide note of deceased specifying culpability of another party. (Paras 2, 8, 9)
(B) Quashing - When the proceedings against individuals constitute an abuse of process of law, leading to quashing for lack of necessary elements to sustain the allegation of complicity in the crime. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitions were filed to quash proceedings against A.2 and A.3, who were implicated in a case after the suicide of the complainant's husband, allegedly due to financial strain linked to property dealings.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to associate the petitioners with the offences in the complaint and determined that continuation of proceedings constituted an abuse of legal process.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the involvement of A.2 and A.3 in the allegations, which were primarily levelled against A.1 based on the complainant's assertions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the petitioners could not be considered abettors or conspirators based solely on their purchase of property under circumstances not directly tied to any wrongdoing in the given context.
Result: Criminal petitions are allowed and proceedings against both petitioners are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on allegations and investigations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments challenging the validity of allegations. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence against the accused. (Para 8 , 9) |
COMMON ORDER:
Since a common issue arises in these criminal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.
2. Crl.P.No.3593 of 2025 and Crl.P.No.3597 of 2025 are filed by the petitioners-A.3 and A.2 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.270 of 2025 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 108 r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’) and while remanding the accused the other sections were added i.e., 318 (4), 316 (3), 61 (1) r/w.3 (5)
of BNS .
3. The facts of the case are that the defacto-complainant-2nd respondent lodged a report before police on 23.02.2025 alleging that her marriage was performed in the year 2002 with one Bantu Nagesh and they have two children and that her husband make a living running and took lease the SLMS Hospital in Nagole X Road, Sanghamitra Hospital in Chaitanyapuri and Sunrise Hospital in Bandlaguda. It is alleged that about one year ago, her husband had mortgaged Plot No.95 in Sy.Nos.454, 455, 456, 457, 458 admeasuring 300 yards plot in Tharamathipet worth Rs.37,000/- per yard with Shekhar Lolam and obtained Rs.30 lakhs hand loan for his personal needs. Thereafter, he obtained another Rs.75 Lakhs by mortgaging plots bearing No.433, 434, 435 and 436 of Pasumamula village with Shekhar Lolam. However, Shekhar Lolam allegedly colluded with G.Indrakaran Reddy, Sammi Reddy and Dr.Anoop Mehta to sell the plots at high price without returning the plots to her husband, leading to his mental and financial devastation. On 22.02.2025, when the complainant returned home she found her husband hanging to the ceiling fan in their bedroom and immediately he was taken to a nearby hospital, where he was declared dead. The 2nd respondent alleges that Shekhar Lolam and others caused her husband's death for selling five plots to others and requested to take action against them. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.270 of 2025. During the course of investigation, it was observed that the deceased approached A.1 for his personal needs for which the deceased pledged the original sale deed documents with A.1 through AGPA, where A.1 cheated and registered the sale deed in favour of A.3, that by pledging plot No.95 of Tharamathipet village the deceased took an amount of Rs.35 lakhs from A.1 and thereafter, the deceased handed over the remaining four documents and obtained an amount of Rs.80 Lakhs and without the knowledge of deceased with a malafide intention, all the plots were sold to A.2 to A.5 for huge amount. As such, the case was registered against the accused for the offences under Section 108 , 318(4), 316(2), and 61(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS .
4. Heard Sri U.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.3593 of 2025, Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.3597 of 2025 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitionerin Crl.P.No.3593 of 2025 is that on 18.04.2024 the husband of 2nd respondent i.e., deceased executed a AGPA with possession and by virtue of the same, A.1 registered sale deed in the year 2024 after receiving entire sale consideration amount from the wife of A.3 and registration was effected by A.1 in favour of wife of A.3 and that after arrest of A.3 he obtained bail. There are no averments in the complaint to constitute any of the offences against A.3. Even A.3 is not the registered owner of the said plot, it was registered in the name of his wife and none of the offences alleged in the
