IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14447 OF 2025 DATE: 28-11-2025 Between:

Rayeesa Begum and another … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings and another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14447 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.157 of 2025 of Kanchanbagh Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is purely of civil in nature and that it revolves around an agreement of sale. For execution of the Sale Deed, respondent No.2-de facto complainant can file a Suit for specific performance, but he has resorted to file the present complaint. The mere allegation is that the petitioners have taken advance sale consideration and have not registered the land in the name of the de facto complainant. For the said simple allegation, the present complaint need not be lodged. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is alleged that petitioner No.2 herein has entered into an agreement of sale with the de facto complainant and subsequently, he has gifted away some property to his wife i.e., petitioner No.1, to avoid execution of Sale Deed in favour of the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS. The said Sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference.

“316. Criminal breach of trust.-

(1) xxx (2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

318. Cheating –

(1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

7. The allegations made in the complaint are to the effect that petitioner No.2 has taken advance amount of sale consideration from the de facto complainant and has failed to register the land in his name. To attract the offence under Section 316(2) of BNS, the petitioners must have been entrusted with the property and they must have put the property to their own use. This is not the case where the de facto complainant has entrusted the petitioners with some property. The de facto complainant has paid advance sale consideration expecting the land to be registered in his name. The de facto complainant should also show as to how the petitioners misappropriated the said amount. The said element does not attract the offence under Section 316(2) of BNS against the petitioners herein. So also, the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS does not attract against the petitioners herein. If the said offence has to be attracted, it should be made out that the petitioners entertained dishonest intention from the inception of crime. In the present case, the agreement of sale is dated 29.10.2022, while the Gift Deed is alleged to be executed on 14.06.2023. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner No.1 entertained dishonest intention as on the date of entering into the agreement of sale. It is not the case of the de facto compl