THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3964 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1384 of 2024 on the file of XI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 and 506 r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a report before police stating that he was introduced to one Y.Shanmuka Prasad by Vaka Srinivas Reddy, a builder, who stated that Y. Shanmuka Prasad owned 1936 square yards of land in Survey No.107 in Bachupally which he purchased from MG. Varma on 16.07.2021. Shanmuka Prasad expressed his intention to sell 500 square yards and develop the remaining 1436 square yards. The complainant, along with Srinivas Reddy, visited Prasad’s office at Bhagyanagar and was shown the land near Hill County back gate. Trusting Y. Shanmuka Prasad, the complainant agreed to purchase 500 square yards of land for Rs.2.5 crores @ Rs.50,000/-

per yard. The complainant paid Rs.50 lakhs in cash, Rs.50 lakhs through cheque, and additional cheques of Rs.50 lakhs and Rs.13 lakhs. Further payments included Rs.4.6 lakhs through cheque in the name of M. Ravi Kumar, Rs.50 lakhs in cash, and Rs.32.4 lakhs in cash to Vaka Srinivas Reddy. On 11.04.2022, the 500 square yards were registered in the name of Sri Chaitanya Builders, represented by Y.S.V.L.N Swamy, at SRO Quthubulapur vide document No.11150/2022. On the same day, a Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney for the remaining 1436 square yards was executed vide document No.11160/2022, for which Y. Shanmuka Prasad received Rs.50 lakhs and issued a receipt. Later, when the complainant applied for construction permission, he discovered that the land had been registered under duplicate names. Upon confrontation, Y. Shanmuka Prasad admitted the mistake and promised to return the money within four months but failed to do so. Subsequently, Y.Shanmuka Prasad provided documents pertaining to Ac.0.36 guntas of land in Shankarpalli and Ac.1.00 in Nandigama, Krishna District, which were also found to be fake. He later offered two triple-bedroom flats in Sardar Patel Nagar, Kukatpally, but did not fulfill his promise.

Thereafter, when the complainant questioned Y.Shanmuka Prasad demanding repayment, he threatened him that he had gun and he kill him. The complainant alleged that Y. Shanmuka Prasad and M.G. Varma created fake documents and deceived him into paying Rs.3 crores. As such, he requested the police to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered the case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri N. Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent and Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is no way connected with the said allegations. No suit is filed against him. Suit is filed against A.1 only and even according to the complainant, A.1 sold land to him by demolishing the semi furnished house and he converted the said land into non- agriculture land by obtaining permission. The petitioner herein has no personal or business acquaintance with the complainant and there is no basis for the allegations made by him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments in Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution V B.Gunashekar and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 793 , Rikhab Birani and another V State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 823, Wyeth Limited and others V State of Bihar and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 2038, Mala Choudhary and another V State of Telangana and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1474 and prayed this Court