THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.162 of 2025 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 424 read with 120(b) read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr.Galaiah Velugu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Tousif Basha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7 and Smt. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that that there are family disputes pending between the petitioners and the de facto complainant and that the petitioners are claiming the property through HIBA. He further submitted that there is a partition suit pending before the civil court wherein the de facto complainant has prayed for partition, which shows that he is not the owner of the property and hence, he cannot claim rents without any title. He further submitted that there was only a family arrangement between the members and under it, he cannot claim rents and use it for himself. He further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners involving criminal breach of trust, would not get attracted unless the de facto complainant proved to be the owner and that his property has been appropriated by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that there is no truth in the allegations leveled against the petitioners and just to settle the scores in the partition suit, the present petition is filed and the continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of law and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7 has submitted that the petitioners herein have filed O.S No.619 of 2000 saying that they are the only legal heirs of Fasiuddin Khan, which is utterly false and that the petitioners are children of the second wife of Faisuddin Khan Soofi while the de facto complainant and others as shown in the petition are the children of the first wife of Fasiuddin Khan Soofi. Thus, the problem has started just because of the suit filed by the petitioners herein. He further submitted that both the branches have enjoyed the rents of 7 mulgies till 2020. He further argued that a notice was issued on 29.09.2021 by the de facto complainant against the tenant and the joint owner i.e. petitioner No.1, occupying one of the mulgies, enhancing the rents and has demanded the tenant to pay the said enhancement directly to the de facto complainant, otherwise he would initiate appropriate legal action. To the said notice, a reply notice was issued by the petitioner No.1 stating that he is not the owner of the suit schedule property and that it is only a moral obligation being the step brother’s son. In the lease deed, he was described as landlord except that he has no claim in the suit schedule property. He further submitted that there are disputes with regard to collection of rents over the property, but, however, there was criminal breach of trust as the petitioners herein were collecting rents on their own from the tenants and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is borne out by record that there are property disputes among the family members i.e. between two branches of late Fasiuddin Khan Soofi, one branch belonging to the first wife and the other belonging to the second wife of late Safiuddin Khan Soofi. The allegations point out that the petitioners collected rents. Since the property is not yet partitioned among all the family members, it is alleged that they cannot collect the entire rents and put it to their own use ignoring the other children, who also are entitled to a portion of rents. The statements of witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial and the truth in the allegations has to be elicited. Hence, it is not fit to quash the proceedi