IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.205 of 2025 DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between Dawalji Raj Kumar ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor and one another ...Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.163 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offence under Section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri P. Pavan Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent. Perused the record.

03(a). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused have been acquainted with each other since 2018 and were engaged as partners in the real estate business. In the month of January, 2020, the petitioner-accused approached the respondent No.2 and requested him to arrange an amount of Rs.14,45,000/-, stating that he was purchasing Plot No.430 admeasuring 250 square yards, situated at Kakatiya Hills, Madhapur. The petitioner-accused further assured the respondent No.2 that he would register 75 square yards out of the said 250 square yards in favour of the respondent No.2. Believing the said assurance, the respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.14,45,000/- to the petitioner-accused. After receipt of the said amount, the petitioner-accused acknowledged the same and executed an agreement and receipt in favour of the respondent No.2.

03(b). It is further alleged that, on 29.01.2020, the petitioner-accused got the said land registered in his own name. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 demanded that the petitioner-accused either register 75 square yards of land, as promised, or return the amount paid. However, the petitioner-accused is alleged to have postponed the matter on one pretext or the other for a period of about two years. As the petitioner-accused failed to either register the land or refund the amount, the respondent No.2 filed a civil suit against the petitioner-accused on 26.04.2023. In the said suit, the petitioner-accused filed his written statement denying his signature on the agreement, allegedly in order to evade his liability.

03(c). It is further alleged that, on 24.06.2023, when the respondent No.2 approached Police Station, Madhapur, and lodged a complaint against the petitioner-accused, the police refused to register an FIR on the ground that a civil case between the parties was pending. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 approached the office of the Director General of Police and submitted the same complaint on the very same day. It is alleged that, subsequently, the petitioner-accused approached Police Station, Madhapur, and got a false case registered against the respondent No.2.

03(d). It is further alleged that, thereafter, the petitioner-accused has been making frequent phone calls to the respondent No.2 and threatening him to withdraw the civil case filed against him. Hence, the respondent No.2 approached the learned trial Court seeking action against the petitioner-accused for allegedly threatening him frequently and for not returning the amount received from him, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the IPC. Upon consideration, the learned trial Court found that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and, accordingly, declined to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. However, the learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner- accused for the offence punishable under Section 506(1) of the IPC.

04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused has no connection whatsoever wi