HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1727 OF 2024 BETWEEN Pagadala Yadaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 74 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.2-32/1, Toopranpet of Choutuppal Mandal, Bhongir District and Another …Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., Choutuppal Police Station, Yadadri Bhongir District, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and Another.

… Respondents Date of Order Pronounced: 06.04.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may (Yes)

be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be (Yes)

marked to Law Reports/Journals?

3. Whether their Lordship/ Ladyship wish to (Yes)

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

____________________________

JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1727 of 2024 % Dated 06.04.2026 # Pagadala Yadaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 74 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.2-32/1, Toopranpet of Choutuppal Mandal, Bhongir District and Another …Petitioners $ The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., Choutuppal Police Station, Yadadri Bhongir District, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and Another.

… Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri. E.Nagaraju ^ Counsel for respondents : 1. Mr.M.Vivekanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

2. Sri Y.Jayanth Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred : 1.(2000) 4 SCC 168

2.(2016) 1 SCC 348 3.(2009) 8 SCC 751

4.2021 SCC OnLine SC 976 5.2019 SCC OnLine SC 196

6.2015 SCC 8 293

7.(2005) 10 SCC 336

8.2002 SCC 1 241

9.(2006) 6 SCC 736

10.(2024) 10 SCC 690

11.(2000) 2 SCC 636 12.(2000) 2 SCC 636

13.(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1727 OF 2024

06^th April, 2026 Between:

Pagadala Yadaiah and Another …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana and Another …Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.437 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State; and Sri Y. Jayanth Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

3. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above calendar case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the brother- in-law of the de facto complainant allegedly entered into an agreement of sale dated 22.03.2018 with the petitioners for the purchase of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 2.22 guntas in Sy. No. 90 of Toopranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal, for a total consideration of Rs. 26,00,000/-. It is stated that the entire sale consideration was paid and possession of the property was delivered, with an understanding that a registered sale deed would be executed as and when required. Subsequently, it is alleged that the petitioners sold the very same property to third parties, who attempted to raise construction thereon. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No. 716 of 2022 came to be registered. 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the dispute is purely civil in nature, arising out of an alleged breach of contract, and has been given a criminal colour with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant is not the aggrieved party and that the complaint has been lodged on behalf of his brother-in-law without any legal authorization, such as a power of attorney. It is argued that even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, the essential