ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.1100 of 2025 of Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 406, 419 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Heard Mr.Nikunj Dugar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the father of the petitioner is the owner of Plot No.43, admeasuring 200 square yards, situated in Sy.No.28/Part, Bachupally Village, Nizampet Municipal Corporation, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, and he executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.33941 of 2023 in favour of respondent No.2 on 19.12.2023 and delivered physical possession of the said property. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint on 30.10.2025 in relation to the document dated 19.12.2023, implicating the petitioner as an accused solely on the ground that he is the son of accused No.2, without making any specific allegations against him. The only allegation levelled in the complaint is that respondent No.2 came to know that one Kakarla Yellamanda, from whom the father of the petitioner allegedly purchased the said property and who formed a crucial link in the chain of title documents furnished to him, had already died in January, 2023, whereas the said property was allegedly sold by Kakarla Yellamanda to B.Babu, who is none other than accused No.2, in October, 2023. Except the said allegation, no specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner. The entire allegations are levelled against accused No.2 only.

3.1. He further submitted that the allegations in the complaint pertain to an immovable property transaction arising out of a registered sale deed dated 19.12.2023. Respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court, on the other hand, filed the present complaint by giving a criminal colour. He further submitted that the petitioner neither forged nor fabricated any documents and accused No.2 alone executed the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. Therefore, the ingredients of Sections 467 and 468 IPC are not attracted. He further submitted that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner did not play any mischief. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are also not attracted. He further submitted that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot go together, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, (2024) 10 SCC 690 Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law.

3.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.11099 of 2011, dated 23.06.2022 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner and accused No.2, without having any manner of right over the subject property, executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. He further submitted that, based on fabricated documents, though the said property originally belonged to one Kakarla Yellamanda, the petitioner and accused No.2, by impersonation, created forged documents in respect of the said property in the name of accused No.2, and accused No.2, without having any manner of right or title over the said property, executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 467 and 468 IPC are attracted. He further subm