IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10741 of 2022 DATE OF ORDER:10.03.2026 Between:

Chintose Salwa Chary & another ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 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 against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.1392 of 2022, on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Kondaparthi Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Bhagath Jain, learned counsel representing Sri Vishan Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The case of prosecution is that the accused have entered into an Agreement-of-Sale with the de facto complainant/LW1, received advance sale consideration and thereafter failed to register the land in favour of the de facto complainant.

4. The learned petitioners’ counsel has submitted that the petitioners have never cheated the de facto complainant and that if at all she is aggrieved by any Agreement- of- Sale, then she could have filed a suit for specific performance but cannot resort to filing a false complaint against them. He further submitted that there are no allegations to attract the offences alleged against them and that the matter is purely civil in nature. He further submitted that the de facto complainant cannot take shelter and support from another FIR registered based on the complaint given by another de facto complainant. Hence, the present complaint is not sustainable and therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that accused Nos. 1 & 2 have caused loss to the de facto complainant by entering into an Agreement- of- sale, received sale consideration and had not registered the land in his favour. Further, they are threatening her to withdraw the suit pending before the Civil Court and have been sending antisocial elements to cause harm to her.

6. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that the matter is civil in nature is not tenable under the eye of law when there is a criminal element. That the complaint is very much maintainable and that the petitioners have to face trial. He further submitted that there are many victims with whom the petitioners have entered into such agreements and have deceived them. Thus, the petitioners have criminal antecedents and are not entitled to any relief. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. It is alleged that the petitioners herein have executed the Agreement-of-Sale agreeing to sell their land and Bhashyam Techno School (G+2) building including its material to LW1 for a cost of Rs.70,00,000/- and have executed an Agreement-of-Sale. After receiving amounts from the de facto complainant, the accused failed to register the land. The allegation faced by the petitioners is that they resorted to cheat the de facto complainant. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 of IPC. The said section is extracted herein for the sake of reference:-

“420 IPC. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

9. The prime allegation against the petitioners is with regard to non-execution of the s