IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4955 OF 2021 DATE: 06-03-2026 Between:

P. Jayaprakash Reddy and six others ...Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by itsPublic Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana, and another ... Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.8677 of 2022 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 384, 447 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Pilli Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 7 with a common intention to cheat LW.1 (de facto complainant) and to grab the land in Plot No.13 in Survey Nos.156, 157 to 162, 175, 176 and 177/A situated at Suraram Village, Quthubullahpur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, have created certain documents illegally, by suppressing the death of the original owner Jonnada Venkatesham, knowing fully-well that the documents are not valid, and that accused No.1, claiming himself as owner of the said plot, executed Sale Deeds in favour of different parties. It is alleged that, subsequently, accused Nos.2 to 7 have trespassed into the subject plot of LW.1, damaged the structures and threatened LW.1 with dire consequences. Further, the accused have extorted LW.1 to handover the title deed of Plot No.13 bearing document No.226/1969 to them. Thus, the present case is registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 384, 447 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the civil matter is given a criminal colour just to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that the de facto complainant does not hold any document to prove that Plot No.13 belongs to him. He further submitted that the case is wrongly registered by the Kukatpally police, while it has to be registered by Dundigal police, since the subject property is located within the limits of Dundigal police. He further submitted that there are two F.I.Rs. registered with similar set of allegations and thus, it amounts to double jeopardy and hence, the proceedings in the present C.C. are liable to be quashed by applying the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 wherein it was held that in respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence when two F.I.Rs. had been lodged, there can be no second F.I.R. and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioners herein.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2-de facto complainant is a bona fide purchaser of the subject property from LW.5. He further submitted that one

Jonnada Venkatesham has executed GPA in favour of petitioner No.1-accused No.1 vide document No.68 of 1992, dated 05.02.1992, and the said Jonnada Venkatesham died on 27.10.1996. He further submitted that petitioner No.1-accused No.1 on noticing that all the plots were not occupied by the owners, who purchased them, planned to grab 36 plots which were in the original layout of Jonnada Venkatesham, without there being any legal right and he used his GPA illegally, claimed possession over the said plots and fraudulently executed Sale Deeds in favour of third parties. He further submitted that accused No.1 fraudulently executed Sale Deeds in favour of petitioner Nos