IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.885 of 2025 DATE: 12.03.2026 BETWEEN:

G. Phani Kumar …..Petitioner/A.3 And The Station House Officer, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Through SHO, P.S.Banjara Hills, Hyderabad & another …..Respondents : ORDER :

This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3126 of 2018 in C.C.No.1411 of 2017 by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.Crl.M.P.No.3126 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner herein to discharge him from the above criminal case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Iqbal Raj gifted 270.36 square yards out of 530 square yards in house No. 8-2- 420/A, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, to the complainant through a registered gift deed document No. 1388/2001 dated 23.01.2001. Later, Accused No.1 and 2 influenced the donor, Mr. Iqbal Raj, to cancel the gift deed. The cancellation was registered as Doc. No.1518/2004 dated 22.04.2004. Aggrieved by this cancellation, the complainant filed Civil Suit O.S.No.6711 of 2004 before the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The court declared the cancellation of the gift deed as illegal, null, and void. The complainant further alleged that Accused No.2, sister of deceased Iqbal Raj, produced a forged Will dated 17.02.2012 after his death on 15.04.2012. The forged Will included the property earlier gifted to the complainant. Based on this Will, Accused No.2 executed a gift settlement deed bearing document No.2326 of 2012 in favour of Accused No.1. Subsequently, Accused Nos.1 to 3 colluded and executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed in favour of Accused No.3 vide document No. 2337 of 2012 and obtained a large loan. The complainant further alleged that the accused cheated him by mortgaging his property. Therefore, they committed offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

3. The contention of petitioner/A.3 before the trial Court is that there is no evidence to show that the accused had any dishonest intention from the beginning and committed offence. When this complaint is filed, the Court referred the same to police and after investigation final report is filed stating that it is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, complainant filed protest petition, the Court took cognizance erroneously against the petitioner herein and the allegations if taken on face value also, no offence is constituted against the petitioner. None of the offences attract to the petitioner. To constitute offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest intention and inducement to the complainant to deliver his property and forego his rights over the said property. The petitioner herein is A.3 and he is only an employee of the Bank and he is no way connected with the said allegations. Further there is no inducement to the petitioner to constitute the offence under Section 406 of IPC. Therefore, the alleged offences are not at all attracted to the petitioner. The disputes are in between A.1 and defacto complainant. The petitioner has not verified the documents and he is not the sanctioning authority of the loan and even according to the prosecution, AGM instructed the petitioner to present the Memorandum of Deposit of title deed at the sub-registrar office which was registered and A.1 executed the document as executants and two persons signed as witnesses. In the said document it is mentioned that Punjab National Bank is represented by Phani Kumar and that is the only basis for registering the case against the petitioner. Further even according to the prosecution, at the instance of AGM the petitioner presented the said title deed before sub- registrar office for registration. The complainant filed this case only to harass him. This is evident from the final report dated