IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:16.03.2026 Between:

Mallela Pavan …Petitioner/Accused No.2 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Building at Hyderabad Through P.S. Mudigonda, Khammam District and another … Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in CC No.2688 of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, registered for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Sri P. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the de facto complainant i.e. Mallela Narasaiah, had five children including the de facto complainant and said Narasaiah expired on 01.09.2020 without there being any division of properties and that he was the pattedar of the land to an extent of Acs.5.05 gts., in Sy. No.504 of Muttaram village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. Subsequent to the death of father of the de facto complainant, the Tahsildar, Mudigonda has issued family members certificate vide proceedings in Dis. No.C/298/2021 dated 16.07.2021 and that since there was no division of properties, the de facto complainant has filed a suit vide O.S.No.747 of 2021 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, seeking partition of the land. During the pendency of the said suit, accused No.1/brother of the de facto complainant, and accused No.2/son of accused No.1, have submitted a fake certificate to the Tahsildar, Mudigonda, stating that they were the only heirs of Mallela Narasaiah i.e. the father of the de facto complainant and got registered the land and obtained pattedar passbook to the said land in the name of accused No.2 by showing the accused No.3 as a witness and thus usurped the entire property left by his father. Hence, the case is registered for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC against the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.2 and that he succeeded to the subject property by virtue of Will Deed dated 10.06.2018 and that accused No.3 has helped accused Nos.1 and 2 in obtaining the pattedar passbook from the concerned authorities and that he is the original owner of the property and the entry in Dharani Portal is also made by the Government based on the documents after thorough verification. Since the respondent No.2-de facto complainant disputed his title, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title, vide O.S. No.899 of 2021, which is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam. Thus, the de facto complainant has no case at all and he cannot allege the offence of cheating against the petitioner herein. Learned counsel has further submitted that even according to the contents of the complaint, none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are made out against the petitioner and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant has submitted that late father of the de facto complainant had five children including the de facto complainant and that the accused No.1 is the elder brother of the de facto complainant and the petitioner-accused No.2 is the son of accused No.1. He further submitted that the alleged Will deed is not a genuine one and is surmounted with suspicious circumstances and that their father would not have executed that Will bequeathing his entire property in favour of his grandson leaving the other children. He further has submitted that all the siblings of the de facto complainant are entitled to a share in the property left by their father and that the petitioner cannot claim the entire property as his o