IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9718 OF 2022 DATE: 06-03-2026 Between:

Mukka Adhi Laxmi ...Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.471 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru, registered for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri R.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Erigi Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant and accused No.1 are acquainted with each other and that accused No.1 has initially promised the de facto complainant that he would find a job to his son and on such promise, he has collected an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the de facto complainant, but accused No.1 has been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. While so, during Telangana agitation, believing the words of accused No.1, the de facto complainant has given Rs.26,00,000/- to accused No.1 to fetch land at Hanmakonda and in furtherance, accused No.1 has purchased 600 Square Yards of land, but registered only 166 Square Yards of land in favour of the de facto complainant. In the year 2015, accused No.1 has taken loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from one Repaka Ramesh and while taking loan, the de facto complainant stood as surety and kept his land documents as collateral security to said Ramesh, however, accused No.1 could not repay the amount to said Ramesh and as such, the de facto complainant obtained personal loan from the Bank and paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, including interest, to the said Ramesh. To settle the issues, a panchayat was conducted before the political leaders and in the said panchayat, accused No.1 has agreed to give an amount of Rs.42,17,400/- to the de facto complainant and to that effect, accused Nos.1 and 2 have executed an agreement and signed before the attestors. But, accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to give effect to the said agreement and they did not even return the amount to the de facto complainant. It is alleged that accused No.1 with a fraudulent and dishonest intention has shown false documents to the de facto complainant making him believe the same to be genuine with the active support of accused Nos.2 to 4. It is further alleged that the accused used criminal force against the de facto complainant. Thus, on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the present case was registered for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2. It is only accused No.1, who is involved in the transactions with respondent No.2-de facto complainant. He further submitted that when there is no participation of the petitioner-accused No.2 in the alleged crime, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the statement of LW.3, if perused, does not show the involvement of accused No.2. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 has also executed the agreement along with accused No.1 in favour of the de facto complainant. Therefore, the petitioner herein is also liable to face prosecution.

He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. It is alleged that the accused have cheated the de facto complainant and made him part with his money by promising that they would return the same, but failed to return the amount. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 I.P.C. The said Section is extracted hereunder f