IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3965 of 2024 DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between K.Bal Reddy and 5 Others …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and Another …Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.218 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kushaiguda, registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, Ms. Laxmi Reddy Byreddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-

respondent No.1. Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the accused No.1 had purchased land admeasuring Acs.5-00 in Sy.No.244 situated at Yadgarpally Village and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is alleged that K. Anji Reddy, father of the accused No.1, entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.02.1998 with P. Madhav Yadav and A. Balesh Yadav in respect of Acs.3-30 guntas out of the said survey number, and later certain supplementary agreements were executed on 05.02.2001. Disputes arose between the parties, resulting in civil litigation in O.S.No.307 of 2007, which ultimately ended in a compromise said to have been recorded by filing a joint memo. During the pendency of the said proceedings, K. Anji Reddy died on 08.09.2015. It is further alleged that the vendees pursued proceedings in C.R.P.No.5196 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.281 of 2021 and pursuant to certain directions, approached the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, for mutation of their names in the Dharani portal and issuance of pattadar passbooks. A passbook is stated to have been issued in respect of Acs.3-30 guntas in Sy.No.244/AA/2. The prosecution case further refers to another agreement of sale dated 29.08.2003 said to have been executed by the father of the accused No.1 in favour of one Bandari Lali Yadav for Acs.3-00 in Sy.No.244. It is also alleged that accused No.1 entered into a separate agreement with the said person on 08.09.2003 asserting his share to an extent of Acs.1-33 guntas. According to the prosecution, though Acs.3-30 guntas had already sold out to P. Madhav Yadav, the accused persons, with knowledge of the earlier transactions, entered into another agreement of sale with possession in favour of respondent No.2 on 03.08.2020 for Acs.2-39 guntas and received a sum of Rs.8,17,00,000/-, but failed to deliver possession or execute a registered sale deed.

04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have absolutely no involvement in the alleged offences and that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner-accused Nos.1 to 6 to cheat the respondent No.2. It is contended that the respondent No.2 herself failed to pay the balance sale consideration and, after a lapse of nearly three years, instead of initiating appropriate civil proceedings, lodged the present false complaint. According to the learned counsel, as on the date of the agreement of sale, no litigation was pending in respect of the subject property. The criminal complaint has been filed only to exert pressure on the petitioners and to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. If the respondent No.2 has any grievance, the remedy available to her is to file a suit for specific performance and not to set the criminal law into motion. It is further contended that, in C.R.P.No.5196 of 2013, a compromise was entered into between the sisters of the petitioner No.1 and Madhav Yadav. However, the said sisters are not the owners of the subject property. The compromise