SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 40502

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Mohammed Fazil Iqbal – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 12960/2025



THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12960 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1903 of 2023 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 448, 427 and 506 IPC.

2. Heard Sri T.V. Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and that there are title disputes over the flat and a civil suit is also pending between the parties over the subject matter. But, initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be maintained and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the de facto complainant has a registered sale deed in his favour while the petitioner is relying upon a notarized agreement of sale which is alleged to be a fake document and that the document needs to be tested during the course of trial. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations point out a property dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioner. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner has created a fake notarized agreement of sale by committing forgery. Thus, prima facie allegations against the petitioner point out the offence of forgery. Though, the matter is of civil nature, once there is an element of criminality, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed as was held in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & ors, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, it is deemed appropriate to

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of court provided he is represented by a counsel on every date of hearing before the trial court and he shall be present before the trial

court as and when his presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA October 17, 2025 KTL

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