IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:05.01.2026 Between:

Dr. B. Karthik Navayan …Petitioner/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.3704 of 2023 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 380 IPC.

2. Heard M.S. Farhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any theft and that the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant and as a counter blast, the present case is lodged against him. Therefore, there is no truth in the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the present case and that just to compel him for withdrawing the complaint filed by him, the present case has been filed against the petitioner and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner herein is alleged to have broke opened the lock of the shop pertaining to the de facto complainant and taken away the property, thus a criminal act of stealing the property has been alleged against the petitioner. The investigation revealed prima facie offence of theft against the petitioner and that they could collect ample evidence against the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is made out from the record that the de facto complaint is the younger brother of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner,

who is the elder brother of the de facto complainant, has broke opened the lock of the business premises of the de facto complainant and taken away the entire clothes and footwear. On questioning, he himself has revealed that he has taken away the entire clothes and footwear from the said shop. FIR No.305 of 2022 is filed against the de facto complainant herein on 30.09.2022 for the offences under Section 324 read with 34 IPC alleging that he beat the petitioner herein when he questioned for non-payment of rent for the shop i.e. R.K. Collection. Thus, there are inter se disputes over the property i.e. shop among the brothers. The present complaint i.e. FIR No.15 of 2023 dated 12.01.2023 lodged by the de facto complainant herein against the petitioner alleging that the stock of clothes and footwear kept in the shop i.e. R.K. Collection were stolen by the petitioner herein. Thus, there are case and counter case filed against each other between the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Anukul Singh’s case (supra), wherein it was held that:

“A dispute concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents is purely civil in character. The essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are not prima facie made out. The institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides.”

8. By observing so, the proceedings were quashed in the said case. But, in the present case, the ingredients of the offences alleged in the complaint attract the offence under Section 380 IPC and further there are case and counter case in the present case as discussed above. Therefore, the said case law is not applicable to the accused in the present case.

9. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the present complaint can be culle