THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14113 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.626 of 2025 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 329(3), 324(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Sri B. Pavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the original owner of the subject property and that by virtue of the said GPA, he has executed the Sale Deed, but respondent No.2- de facto complainant has falsely filed the present complaint against him alleging forgery, which is not maintainable. He further submitted that the civil dispute is given a criminal colour, which is not just and proper and is against the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the original owner of the subject property is one B. Pentaiah @ Penta Reddy, but one B. Papi Reddy and B. Sathi Reddy, who are the brothers of said Penta Reddy, without there being any right over the subject property, have executed an agreement of sale-cum- GPA in favour of one Prakash Chand Jain and the petitioner herein and by invoking the said GPA, the petitioner herein and Prakash Chand Jain have executed Sale Deed in favour of Mohammed Asifuddin and Shabad Tajuddin. Thus, without any right, the said documents have been fraudulently executed. Therefore, there is criminal element in this case and hence, the remedy lies in the criminal Court and the present complaint is very much maintainable. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is borne out by record that one Penta Reddy is the owner of land in Survey No.149 and converted the land into residential plots and sold to several people, who in turn sold the property to Mrs. Ayesha Mahjabeen, through whom the de facto complainant has purchased the subject property. It is alleged that one B. Sathi Reddy and B. Papi Reddy fraudulently executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.3651 of 2010, dated 24.12.2010, in favour of the petitioner herein and one Prakash Chand Jain and based on such forged GPA, they brought into existence registered Sale Deed vide document No.582 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025, in the names of Mohammed Asifuddin and Shabad Tajuddin. Therefore, alleging that the said Sale Deed is fictitious document got fraudulently executed, the present complaint is filed. Hence, prima facie case exists against the petitioner herein. In Mohammed Ibrahim’s case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, it was held that criminal Courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or pressurizing parties to settle civil disputes. Thus, the petitioner’s counsel contends that criminal proceedings cannot be invoked in this case. But, in the said decision, it was further observed that civil disputes in some cases may also contain ingredients of criminal offences and such disputes have to be entertained notwithstanding that they are also civil disputes. The Honourable Apex Court in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 172, has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In the present case, there is an element of forgery pointing out the prima facie case against the petitioner herein and thus, ther