HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1206 AND 1207 of 2026 DATE: 10 .03.2026 Between :

Ramavath Santhosh Naik and two others ....Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 6 & 7 in Crl.P.No.1206 of 2026 A. Harshavardhan Rao @ Allineni Harshavardhan Rao and three others ....Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crl.P.No.1207 of 2026 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, Through Police Station, Moinabad, Cyberabad Commissionerate and another.

....Respondents : COMMON ORDER:

Crl.P.No.1206 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 6 and 7, and Crl.P.No.1207 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.49 of 2026 of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 318(2), 316(2), 351 and 61 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘the SCs/STs Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 24.01.2026 stating that the accused Nos.1 to 7 collectively approached him and informed him that Plot No.85-E, admeasuring 110 square yards, situated in Survey No.214 of Peddamangalaram Village, was available for sale. Believing their words, he purchased the said plot through AGPA holder Ramavath Santosh Naik/accused No.1 and obtained a registered sale deed dated 18.06.2025 vide Document bearing No.2939 of 2025, after paying a sale consideration of Rs.9,50,000/-. After purchase, he constructed a house on the plot shown to him as Plot No. 85-E. However, in December 2025, the house was demolished by the Moinabad Municipal staff pursuant to orders of the Hon’ble High Court. Upon further enquiry, he discovered that though the sale deed mentioned Survey No. 214, the physical plot shown and delivered to him was actually situated in Survey No. 212, thereby revealing that he had been misled and cheated. It is further alleged that the petitioners formed themselves into a group/syndicate with a fraudulent intention, created a fictitious entity in the name of “Raghavendra Co-operative Housing Society Limited,” fabricated non-

existent plots, prepared forged documents, and sold lands not belonging to them by falsely representing them as genuine, thereby unlawfully earning money. In the same manner, they allegedly cheated several other innocent persons. When respondent No.2 demanded refund of his money, the petitioners refused, abused him in the name of his caste, and criminally intimidated him with threats to kill, causing fear and mental harassment. It is also alleged that several criminal cases were previously registered against the petitioners at Moinabad Police Station under various offences, and that they are habitual offenders involved in organized land frauds by executing sale deeds in one survey number while showing possession in another. Hence, the present crime has been registered for the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Mr. M. Rameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gandyadapu Rajesham, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-

State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 308(5), 318(2), 316(2), 351 and 61 read with 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the SCs/STs Act are not attracted. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint is purely civil as it