THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:16.02.2026 Between:

Madhu B. Chirumamilla and another …Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 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 petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in FIR No.542 of 2020 on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act, 2015 and 3(2)(V)(a) of the SC and ST PoA Act.

2. Heard Sri V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1-State and Sri Leo Raj, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant has entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner No.1 for purchase of two plots initially in M/s.Mycon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., for a sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. She has paid Rs.13,00,000/- by way of cash and cheques and for the remaining amount she obtained loan from Syndicate bank on the basis of the agreement of sale entered with the petitioner No.1 and obtained Rs.13,80,000/- loan and paid Rs.26,80,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and asked him to register the said plots in her name by receiving the balance of Rs.20,000/-. But, the petitioner No.1 having received the sale consideration, failed to register plot Nos.6 and 13. While so, the de facto complainant came to know that the petitioner No.1 has obtained bank loan of Rs.14,00,000/- by submitting forged document of agreement of sale in the name of the de facto complainant in respect of plot Nos.3 and 14. As the bank officials asked the petitioner No.1 to obtain the signature of the de facto complainant on the original agreement of sale, then he approached the de facto complainant and offered to sell Plot Nos.3 and 14 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. Then, the de facto complainant paid the sale consideration for plot Nos.3 and 14 also and requested him to register plot Nos.6 and 13 in her name and also in the name of her husband and plot Nos.3 and 14 in her name only. The petitioner No.1 registered plot Nos.3 and 14 in the name of the de facto complainant, but postponed registration of plot Nos.6 and 13. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant came to know recently that the petitioner No.1 has sold away plot No.6 to a third party. Hence, she filed the present complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the de facto complainant has come up with a false allegation and that the agreement of sale was entered in 2007 while the present complaint is lodged after 15 years alleging that the plots are not appreciated in value and thus, the de facto complainant is pressurizing the petitioners herein to take back their land and return her money or give some more land in lieu of the money given by her. He further submitted that the same complaint has been lodged before the SC and ST Commission and the Commission has found it to be a false complaint and that the case of the de facto complainant does not merit for any consideration and unnecessarily she has implicated the petitioners with false allegations and harassing them. He further has submitted that she has simply raised the allegations in the name of caste just to implicate them under the SC and ST Act. The de facto complainant has never stated in his complaint as to how the petitioners have insulted her and whether the act is committed in the public view. Thus, there are no ingredients in the complainant to attract the alleged offences and that the de facto complainant has just given a criminal colour to the civil matter. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant has submitted