IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.203 of 2026 Date: 08.01.2026 Between:

Pankaj Kumar Jha ...Petitioner/accused No.1 AND Smt. Kumari Prem Sharma and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.968 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Shadnagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Sri Vikram Bollam, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2 -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence punishable under Sections 420 or 506 of IPC and that initially there were two directors, one of them was Bollineni Venkateshwarlu, whose name was deleted from the charge sheet. But the allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 and 2 herein. He further submitted that even in case, the defacto complainant paid some amounts for registration of the plots and selling the same, she could have approached the concerned Civil Court for recovery of the said amount. The present complaint is lodged with an ulterior motive. Initiating criminal proceedings to seek remedies in a civil dispute is an abuse of process of law. Moreover, the complaint does not mention the date, place, the words allegedly uttered, or the manner of the alleged threat so as to attract the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. Hence, Section 506 of the IPC cannot be invoked against the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in case, if it is only for recovery of money, then the defacto complainant could have approached the Civil Court. But, the petitioner herein after receiving the amounts from the defacto complainant, have fled away from the place by closing down their office. Hence it involves a criminal element of deception. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings and further prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out that the petitioner is alleged to have received amounts from the defacto complainant on the pretext of selling plots. However, after receiving an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- from the defacto complainant, they removed their office from Kothapet, where it had existed earlier. Therefore, the allegations do point out a prima facie case against the petitioner herein. The statements of witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court.

7. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner/accused No.1 before the Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever he is specifically required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Dt. 08.01.2026 ggd THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.203 of 2026 Dt.08.01.2026 ggd