IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5260 of 2019 DATE OF ORDER:10.03.2026 Between:

Sri S.Yadi Reddy ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another ...Respondents

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings including the charge sheet initiated against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.147 of 2017, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 423, 447 and 506 read with 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Manu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of prosecution is that petitioner/accused No1 has purchased a land admeasuring Ac.08.30 guntas, situated in Sy.No.159B and 160 of Cheeryal Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from original pattedars Chindam Somaiah and others vide registered Sale Deed Document No.3775 of 1985, dated 16.05.1985. Thereafter, he converted the land into residential layout and sold the plots to the prospective purchasers in and around 1985- 87. It is further alleged that accused No.2 purchased Plot No.2, admeasuring 438 Sq.yards from accused No.1 in the said layout through registered Sale Deed Document No.4229 of 1985, after which, accused No.2 has mortgaged the said plot in City Union Bank; obtained loan for his business necessities. Due to non- payment of the loan, the City Union Bank Limited has put the said plot to auction sale. Thus, LW3 purchased the plot from accused No.2 by repaying the loan amount through registered document i.e., Agreement of Sale -cum- General Power of Attorney vide Document No.74 of 2015 dated 07.01.2015. It is alleged that LWs 1 & 2, after going through the title and possession, have purchased the said plot by paying valuable sale consideration vide Document No.1736 of 2015, dated 07.04.2015. While so, on 22.04.2015 and 27.04.2015, when LWs 1 & 2 went to their plot to construct a house, accused No.2 resisted and tried to grab the plot and further threatened LWs 1 & 2 with dire consequences. On enquiry, they came to know that accused No.1 has illegally sold the same land in favour of accused No.3 and his brother Ravichander Goud (expired) vide document No.4930 of 2002, dated 11.09.2002, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.08.13 guntas in Sy.Nos.159B & 160 which was already converted into residential plots including Plot No.2, admeasuring 438 Sq.yards of LWS 1 & 2. In the said registered Sale deed, accused No.2 stood as an attesting witness. Thus, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 have acted in collusion with each other and created documents over the subject land and cheated LWs 1 & 2. The crime is registered for the offences under Sections 420, 423, 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

4. Learned petitioner’s counsel submitted that the contents of the complaint do not make any whisper about the involvement of accused No.1, but still he is arrayed as an accused. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC do not get attracted even according to the allegations in the complaint and the recitals of charge sheet. He further submitted that LWs 1 & 2 if at all have purchased the said plot, their vendor is alleged to be accused No.2 and he has no connection with accused No.1 and therefore, the proceedings against accused No.1 cannot be continued as the same would be abuse of process of law and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against accused No.1.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that through the investigation, they could ascertain that accused Nos. 1 to 3 acted in collusion with each other and made double registration over the same piece of land and that the prosecution could examine th