THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1136 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.290 of 2024 on the file of P.S. Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 194, 205, 406, 420, 463, 464 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 179 of BNSS.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri R.Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State and Sri K.S.Suneel, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioners counsel submitted that the matter is purely of civil in nature and that there are several claim petitions pending out of similar transactions and that the petitioners and de facto complainant purchased the property from the same vendor under an agreement of sale. He further submitted that they filed a suit for specific performance and it was decreed in their favour and thus, the Court has executed sale deed in their favour. Now the de facto complainant to settle the scores in the civil case has filed this false complaint implicating them. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against them and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation is taken up in pursuance to the private complaint lodged by the de facto complainant and that charge sheet is filed. He further submitted that as per the allegations in the charge sheet, there is prima facie case against the petitioners.

4. Perused the record.

5. The record discloses that there are civil cases pending between both the parties. The private complaint lodged by the complainant itself points out the said allegations of fabricating the receipt of legal notice. It is alleged that the GPA holder expired in the year 2007 and that after 17 years, the so called agreement of sale is being claimed and that no notice has been served on the deceased till his death and that the receipt of legal notice is being fabricated.

6. The learned petitioners counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335. In the said case, the Apex Court had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing the criminal proceedings. In para 102, the Apex Court enumerated seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as follows:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within