THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11971 of 2025 ORDER:-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.291 of 2025, on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, Mancherial District, registered for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 as well as Smt.Shalini Saxena, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-

State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is purely civil in nature, but the defacto complainant has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings just to pressurize the petitioner to settle the scores in themselves point out that the defacto complainant has paid certain amounts to the petitioner and that the petitioner failed to register a criminal proceedings against the petitioner is not proper to settle the civil matter and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KUNTHI AND ANR. Vs.STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR, 2023 6 SCC 109 stating that in the said decision, the principle laid down by the Apex Court was not to initiate criminal proceedings while a civil dispute is pending.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are specific allegations against accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner herein and that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC clearly attract to the present case. She further pointed out that the statement of LW7 discloses the allegations made against accused No.1 and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The statement of independent witness i.e., LW7, who is a tenant of the petitioner herein is also recorded by the prosecution which forms part of record. The veracity of the statement of witnesses and the truth or otherwise in the allegations are to be tested during the course of trial. Though the petitioner counsel contends that criminal proceedings cannot be launched based on a civil dispute, but the Apex Court in Kathyayini v.

Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712, 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.

6. In the present case, the contents of the complaint, statement of LW7 and the recitals of charge sheet do point out prima facie allegations against the petitioner herein.

7. Therefore, in view of the said decision and in view of the above held discussion, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner/accused No.1 before the Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever he is specifically required during the course of trial.

8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Dt.16.09.2025 ysk