A criminal case may proceed despite civil disputes; preliminary allegations warrant a trial for facts verification.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.39 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur, Mancherial District, for the offences under Sections 341 , 290 and 504 IPC.

2. Heard Sri K. Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that LW.2 and the accused had disputes with regard to selling of rice mill of LW.2 as the accused purchased the same by paying Rs.39.00 lakhs to LW.2, but he could not effect registration in favour of the accused. Since then, the disputes arose between them. The accused demanded LW.2 to return his money, went to the house of LW.2 and while the de facto complainant herein (wife of LW.2) was making rangoli in front of the house, he went there and pushed her aside and attacked on her by throwing eggs in front of her house by creating nuisance and when the de facto complainant told the matter to her husband (LW.2) and made calls to 100, the accused fixed the bolt of their gate and wrongfully restrained them inside the house and at about 10.00 p.m. again he came there and thrown eggs in front of their house and also on the next day, he has thrown feces in front of their house making them to leave the house. Thus, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 341 , 290 and 504 IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a false case filed against the petitioner by the de facto complainant and that if at all the petitioner has paid money to the husband of the de facto complainant and if they have not registered or handed over the property in his name, he could have filed a suit for specific performance. He further submitted that the petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale on 23.11. 2020 with the respondent No.2 and her husband for M/s. Mahalaxmi Rice Mill, along with a Bolero vehicle for Rs.79,20,000/- and that he paid Rs.30,20,000/- through cash and bank transfers and that all the original documents connected to the schedule property were promised to be given, but not provided. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the property has to be registered by 28.02.2021, but despite repeated requests and personal visits, the respondent No.2 and her husband avoided registration on one pretext or the other and that the de facto complainant and her husband sold the property fraudulently to one Mohd. Farooq vide document No.9819 of 2024.

Therefore, the petitioner approached the court of Principal District Judge, Mancherial by filing a suit for specific performance vide O.S. No.11 of 2025 and obtained an ad-interim injunction in his favour, restraining the alienation of the property. Subsequent to the said suit, the present complaint is filed with a malafide intention to evade registration of the property in his favour and there is delay in filing the complaint. Thus, it is the de facto complainant and her husband, who are the culprits and that the petitioner is facing false allegations and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the police could examine the statements of the witnesses revealing the offence against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that though the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out with regard to delay in lodging the complaint, once the charge sheet is filed, delay is not a ground to be considered. The offence is alleged to