THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:19.02.2026 Between:

E. Lakshmi Sudarshana Reddy …Petitioner And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.474 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120(b) IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that LW.2 is the father of the de facto complainant-LW.1 and that LW.2 was suffering from partial psychic problem and the petitioner-accused, who is the brother-in- law of the de facto complainant, has taken LW.2 to the Sub-Registrar Office, Alampur, and got executed a registered sale deed on the lands of LW.2 in Sy. No.415/A/2 to an extent of Ac.1.32 gts. and Sy. No.416/A/2/1 to an extent of Ac.1.18 gts., and thus total extent of Acs.3.14 gts., without the consent of the other family members. Thus, in 2018 LWs.1 and 3 who are the sons of LW.2 came to know about the cheating committed by the petitioner after they received less amount of Rythu Bandhu Scheme from the government and when they questioned the petitioner and insisted to return their landed property, the accused returned only Ac.1.00 gts., of land.

3. Heard Sri Lakshmi Kanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Sri P.

Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased the above said landed property from LW.1 by paying total consideration and that the de facto complainant is very much aware about the transaction and that in a partition suit filed by the wife of the petitioner herein i.e. sister of the de facto complainant against her brothers the subject property is excluded. He further submitted that it is out of necessity that they have sold away the land to the petitioner and further are turning around and lodged the complaint with false allegations, just to harass the petitioner as his wife has filed the partition suit against them. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant has submitted that with dishonest intention the petitioner has taken the father of the de facto complainant, who is not in a fit state of mind, and obtained his signatures on the registered sale deed. Thus, the alleged act of the petitioner constitutes the offence of cheating. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. It is alleged that the petitioner has resorted to obtaining the signatures of the father of the de facto complainant and got executed registered sale deed in his favour, when he was not in a fit state of mind. The alleged unfit mental state of the father of the de facto complainant is a triable issue, which needs to be tested during the course of trial. Thus, the allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioner herein for the offence under Sections 420 IPC.

8. As far as the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it involves an element of entrustment of property. Here no such entrustment of property was there with the petitioner, so that he is alleged to have misappropriated the same. Therefore, the allegations do not prima facie point any offence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 406 IPC can be quashed.

9. Further, the allegation under Section 120-B IPC involves the element of prior meeting of minds. Here, the allegations are made only against a single person. Hence, the ingredients of the said offence on its face do not point out the offence under Section 120-B IPC. Therefore, the proceedings under the said offence can