IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5008 of 2024 DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between K. Vikram ...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 FIR No.714 of 2023 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

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

03. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-

accused is claiming to have paid Rs.14,45,000/- on the basis of forged agreement dated 24.01.2020 and claiming that the respondent No.2 have purportedly agreed to give away 30% of his land in Plot No.430 Sy.No.33, 34P, 35P, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of Guttalabegumpet. The respondent No.2 had never executed the purported agreement and the complainant stated that the signatures appearing in the purported agreement are not of the respondent No.2 and have not been subscribed by him. The respondent No.2 not received any amount as mentioned in the above purported agreement. It is found that the said document is photoset copy of the purported agreement and the said document is not printed on a non-judicial stamp paper and only revenue stamp of Rs.100 paisa is affixed at the bottom showing receipt of Rs.14,45,000/-. The petitioner-accused forged and fabricated document and conspiring with two witnesses to illegally grab the rightful property under his possession and ownership and they have also committed illegal acts to knock away the property and to cause wrongful loss to the respondent No.2 and wrongful gain to themselves and also caused mental agony. Hence, he requested to take action against the petitioner-accused for the above alleged offences.

04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that there are property disputes between the parties and all the allegations are of civil in nature. The petitioner, the respondent No.2 and one Srikanth Morlawar are partners in real estate business since 2018. The said Srikanth Morlawar came out of the partnership business and a settlement between the parties happened and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.10.2021 is executed dividing the properties among them, wherein there was a condition that the property under dispute to an extent of 30% share will be executed as a sale deed in favour of the petitioner as per agreement dated 24.01.2020 but the respondent No.2 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner-accused, for which, on 20.04.2023 the petitioner-accused had filed O.S.No.222 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 24.01.2020. The said agreement was indemnified by paying amount of Rs.1,20,000/- under Section 33 of the Indian Stamps Act. On 24.06.2023 the present complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 but on the same day, the petitioner-accused had also filed a complaint but the same was refused by the Police. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute any offence. The contents of the complaint, read as a whole, do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract the alleged offences.

04(b). With the above submissions, while pr