IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4621 OF 2024 DATE: 25.03.2026 Between :

Kaiser and another.

… Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

AND The State of Telangana, Hyderabad, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, and another.

… Respondents.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law, seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 7117 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said calendar case, arising out of Crime No. 42 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, claiming to be the owner of property bearing Plot No. 711 situated in Jubilee Hills Co-operative Society, issued an advertisement offering the said property for sale. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant approached the petitioners and agreed to purchase the property for a total consideration of Rs.14 Crores. Pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is alleged to have been paid as advance, with a stipulated period of twelve months for payment of the balance consideration and completion of registration. It is alleged that, during the subsistence of the said agreement, the petitioners, with a dishonest intention, alienated the property in favour of a third party, thereby cheating the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioners have indulged in similar acts with other persons. Based on the said allegations, the above crime was registered, culminating in the present proceedings.

4. Heard Mr. Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No.1-State.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the dispute, even if taken at face value, arises purely out of an alleged breach of an agreement of sale and does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is submitted that mere non-performance of contractual obligations or subsequent alienation of property does not ipso facto constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. It is further contended that the alleged payments were made in March 2018, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only in the year 2022, well beyond the agreed contractual period, thereby casting serious doubt on the bona fides of the prosecution. Additionally, it is submitted that the investigation has not yielded any documentary evidence, such as an agreement of sale, receipts, or proof of payment, to substantiate the allegations.

5.2. Learned counsel also places reliance on an earlier proceeding in C.C. No. 10438 of 2021 involving similar allegations against the petitioners, which was quashed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 9916 of 2021. It is, therefore, argued that continuation of the present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the statements of the de facto complainant and other witnesses have been recorded during investigation, indicating payment of advance consideration. However, upon specific query by this Court, it is fairly conceded that no independent documentary material has been collected during investigation to substantiate such payments or the existence of a binding agreement. It is no