THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.15554 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2576 of 2019 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. The offence alleged against petitioners is under Sections 420, 406 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Ms. Tanushree Bose, learned counsel for petitionersand Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor for the respondent– State.

Perused the material on record.

3. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2 on 13.09.2017, FIR bearing No.511/2017 was registered at Raidurgam P.S., Charge sheet was filed on 31.10.2019, on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, under Sections 420, 406 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

4. The gist of the complaint is that petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 induced respondent No.2 to purchase house plot bearing Nos.B16 and B17 in Sy.Nos.64, 66, 67/A, 68, 69 and 70 situated at Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, for a sale consideration of Rs.2,35,00,000/-. An agreement of sale was entered on 25.04.2013 and an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was paid as advance. That balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration or after completion of second floor construction by accused No.1. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.68,00,000/- was paid into City Bank, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad, towards outstanding loan pertaining to subject property on the request of accused No.1 and that original documents deposited with the Bank were obtained and deposited before DRT.

5. O.S.No.1051 of 2015 is filed by respondent No.2 before III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale and the said suit is pending adjudication. It is alleged that respondent No.2 requested accused No.1 to register the subject property in his favour and that accused Nos.1 and 2 were dragging the matter.

6. It is alleged that respondent No.2 came to know that attachment orders of the subject property were passed in O.S.No.441 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with their relative Mr. M.Srinivas Reddy (accused No.3), created promissory note purported to have been executed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in favour of Mr. M.Srinivas Reddy, later, a suit vide O.S.No.441 of 2014 was filed by Mr. M.Srinivas Reddy for recovery of amount and ex- parte attachment order was sought against the subject property.

7. It is also alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 with dishonest intention cheated respondent No.2 by inducement and caused irreparable loss, in spite of complainant being in possession of subject property. Hence the complaint.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in the year 2013, a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 and that Crime No.520 of 2013 was registered under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC in respect of agreement of sale entered between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 with regard to the subject property. It is further submitted that Crime No.520 of 2013 was closed. It is also submitted that after the closure of proceedings in Crime No.520 of 2013, the present complaint dated 13.09.2017 is filed on the same set of facts and that after investigation, a charge sheet is filed.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that, respondent No.2 has been filing complaints repeatedly with a view to harass the petitioners. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to file such repeated complaints, misusing and abusing the process of law.

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that on perusal of the record (complaint, FIR, charge