THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7422 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.6439 of 2022 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Ms. Nishtha, learned counsel representing Mr.Abhishek Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1.

3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant lodged a police report on 05.05.2022, alleging that the petitioner/accused had sold the disputed plot of land to the complainant’s father in the year 2002. Following the death of his father, the de facto complainant, as the legal successor, came to know that the said plot had been acquired for the establishment of a Hardware Park by TSIIC Limited, and that a notification had been issued regarding compensation. However, the petitioner/accused did not receive any such notice. Upon inquiry, the complainant discovered that the property had been subjected to double registration, as the original vendor had previously executed a sale deed for the same property in the year 2000 in favor of other individuals. When those individuals issued a notice and approached the complainant, he became aware of the duplicity and alleged that the vendor had committed cheating. Consequently, a police complaint was filed. After conducting a due investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the petitioner/accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and lacked any mens rea to commit cheating. The counsel asserts that in the given circumstances, the petitioner executed a cancellation deed and subsequently registered another sale deed in favor of a subsequent purchaser. It is further argued that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are not satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed accordingly. In support, learned counsel cited following judgments i.e., Dilipkaur v. Jagnar Singh, 2009 14 SCC 696, In Hira Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257, In Hriday Prasad Rajan Verma v. State of Bihar 3, In Vesa Holdings Pvt.v. State of Kerala4 and In G. Sagar Suri v.

State of U.P.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific and direct allegations against the petitioner, supported by material on record which establishes that the petitioner executed two

3 2000 (2) Crimes 72 (SC) 4 2015(2) Crimes 114(SC)

5 (2000) 2 SCC 636

separate sale deeds, one in favor of the father of the de facto complainant and another in favor of a subsequent purchaser. It is further submitted that the cancellation deed clearly states that, although the earlier sale deed recorded that full consideration had been paid and physical possession delivered to the vendees, the petitioner later proceeded to cancel the same. This averment demonstrates that the petitioner knowingly executed the initial sale deed and, despite that, proceeded to transfer the same property again without initiating or following the proper legal recourse. Such conduct, it is argued, satisfies the essential elements of the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code, including the existence of mens rea. Moreover, the prosecution contends that the petitioner's defence and assertions, including claims of lack of fraudulent intent, are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial. At the stage of considering a petition for quashment, such factual issues cannot be conclusively determined. Accordingly, it is submitted that the case presents sufficient material to proceed to trial, and therefore, there are no grounds to warrant quashing of the proceedings at this juncture.

6. I ha