IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12461 OF 2024 DATE: 13.03.2026 Between :

Mr. Namani Vasudevulu and another … Petitioners AND The State of Telangana Rep by Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking quashment of the charge sheet against the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 in C.C. No.521 of 2020 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-

cum-Special Mobile judge at Nalgonda.

2. Heard Mr. Papaiah Peddakula, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, seek quashment of the proceedings arising out of a private complaint filed by respondent No.2/defacto complainant, which has been registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that, pursuant to a Court referred complaint filed by respondent No.2, a criminal case came to be registered in relation to a transaction concerning the purchase of agricultural land. According to the complaint, the accused persons offered to sell agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey No.201 situated at Gattupally Village for a total sale consideration of Rs.17,50,000/-. In furtherance thereof, an agreement of sale dated 14.09.2012 was executed between the parties. It is alleged that the defacto complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.4,37,500/- towards part of the sale consideration. It is further alleged that the accused, on one pretext or the other, postponed execution of the registered sale deed and suppressed the existence of pending civil litigation in respect of the subject property in O.S. No.369 of 2012. The complainant further alleges that the accused were not the absolute owners of the property and had fraudulently induced him to enter into the transaction.

4.2. Based on the said allegations, Crime No.100 of 2018 was registered by Chandur Police Station on 15.10.2018, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, which culminated in C.C. No.521 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-

cum-Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the criminal proceedings are wholly unsustainable and constitute an abuse of process of law. It is contended that the subject property was originally purchased by the petitioners’ father, late Sri Namani Kotaiah, under a registered sale deed bearing No.2316 of 1991, and upon his demise, the petitioners succeeded to the property; the defacto complainant is admittedly a party to O.S. No.369 of 2012, which pertains to disputes regarding title and rights over the same property, thereby demonstrating that the dispute is civil in nature; the entire dispute arises out of an agreement of sale relating to immovable property, and the grievance of the complainant pertains to alleged non performance of contractual obligations, which falls squarely within the domain of civil law. It is further submitted that even if the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

5.2. It is also contended that the agreement of sale is of the year 2012, whereas the complaint was lodged only in 2018, after a delay of nearly six years. Such unexplained delay, according to the petitioners, indicates that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive to exert pressure in a civil dispute.

5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370, to contend that although civ