1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.2654 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. Heard Mr.S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Goverdhan Venu, learned counsel, representing M/s Nomos Vistas The Lawyers, appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. Brief facts of the case:

               3.1. That on 18.05.2022, the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he purchased a Plot No.379 in Sy.No.529 to an extent of 200 square yards on his wife's name in New Green City, Budvel vide Sale Deed No.1392 of 1997, SRO, Rajendranagar in the year 1997. Thereafter, he obtained LRS proceedings No.LRS/1575/CR-6/GHMC/2008, dt.05.09.2008, and is in peaceful possession and constructed a compound wall. On 23.08.2018, D.Bhaskara Rao, who is the petitioner/accused No.1 sent a Court notice to him through Advocate Pinnu Nagaraju and told that the above plot No.379 is purchased by him vide Sale Deed No.9161 of 2018 of SRO, Rajendranagar executed by V.Narayana Reddy, GPA holder to V.Mohan Reddy, M.Jaihind Reddy and V.Anasuya with . It was observed that accused No.1 has filed a suit in O.S. No.1867 of 2018 on the file of the VII Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and on 05.05.2022, accused No.1 has fixed the name boards and took somebody to the site to sell the plot to them and harassing him and his wife and requested to take action. Based on the said complaint, the Crime No.875 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and after conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 420 of IPC before the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and issued summons to the petitioner and other accused in C.C. No.2654 of 2022. Hence, the present Criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2654 of 2022.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

               4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and in the charge sheet, the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property to an extent of 200 square yards in plot No.379 in through registered Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018, from its rightful owners by paying valuable sale consideration and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and he is a bonafide purchaser.

               4.2 He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he had purchased 200 square yards in Sy.No.529 in the name of his wife through Registered Sale Deed, dated 14.03.1997, and the petitioner along with other accused are trying to interfere with the subject property. When the wife of respondent No.2 claimed the very same property of the petitioner through alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 14.03.1997, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.1867 of 2018 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking declaration and perpetual injunction and also declaring the Sale Deed, dated 26.05.1997 as illegal and null and void and the same is not binding upon him. Along with the said suit, he filed I.A.No.1097 of 2018 for grant of ad interim injunction. Accordingly ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 16.03.2021. After receiving the injunction order, respondent No.2 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner and other accused without having any manner of right, created forged and fabricated documents and are claiming rights over the property. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation deleted the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC and filed final report for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Once the Investigating Officer deleted the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC, implicating the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, is not permitted under law, especially the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of IPC are not made out.

               4.3. He further submitted that the nature of allegations made in the complaint is purely civil in nature. To resolve the civil dispute, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by giving it a different colour implicating the petitioner for the penal provisions. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 purchased the property in the name of his wife from GPA holder. The original owners have already cancelled the said GPA on 26.06.1995 even before execution of Sale Deed by GPA holder in favour of wife of respondent No.2. Once the GPA holder is not having any right to execute the document by virtue of cancellation of the GPA, respondent No.2 or his wife is not entitled to claim any rights over the property. To decide the ownership/title of the said property, a comprehensive civil suit i.e. O.S.No.1867 of 2018 is pending before the civil Court and the entire allegations levelled by respondent No.2 has to be adjudicated and decided in the above suit only. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

               5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the vendors of the petitioner are not having any semblance of right in respect of the property to execute the alleged Sale Deed in his favour, on the ground that the petitioner’s vendors have executed registered GPA to an extent of Ac.6-02 guntas in , dated 16.11.1991, in favour of Abdul Ali and Fateh Ali and handed over the possession authorizing them to develop the said land into residential plots and also authorized them to alienate the same by receiving sale consideration. Pursuant to the same, GPA holders developed the above land along with neighbouring land after obtaining approved layout from the competent authorities, converted the above land and other land into 600 plots in the name of New Green City colony between 1991-1996 and they alienated the same to several individuals by way of registered documents.

               5.2. He further submitted that the original owners cancelled GPA, dated 16.11.1991, unilaterally without issuing any notice to the GPA holders and therefore, the alleged cancellation of GPA, dated 20.06.1995, is not valid under law. The vendors of the petitioners have not taken possession from the GPA holders through process of Court. Admittedly, the possession is with the GPA holders and subsequent purchasers.

               5.3. He further submitted that the petitioner and other accused with a dishonest intention to defeat the rights of the purchasers, who purchased the property from the GPA holder of original owners, created alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018, with wrong survey numbers and is claiming rights over the property belonging to the wife of respondent No.2 under the guise of the above said alleged Sale Deed with a dishonest intention, especially, plot bearing No.379 is covered by .

               5.4. He also submitted that the petitioner and other accused have also committed the similar offences and Crime No.897 of 2022 is pending. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed final report. LWs.3 and 4, who are neighbouring plot owners, specifically stated in their statements, which were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., that wife of respondent No.2 is the owner of the property and the petitioner and other accused are not having any rights over the said property.

               5.5. He further submitted that the petitioner basing upon the pendency of the civil suit, is not entitled to seek for quashing the proceedings, especially there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner about his dishonest intention from the inception to claim rights over the property of wife of respondent No.2 and the same has to be decided by the trial Court after full- fledged trial. Therefore, the criminal petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

               5.6 In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the following judgments;

               i) Md.Allauddin Khan v. The State of Bihar ((2019) 6 SCC 107);

               ii) Dr. A. Chandrasekhar v. The State of Telangana(AIR Online 2021 TEL 72);

               iii) Dr. Vijay Anand Reddy v. N.Shashank Reddy and another (Crl.P.No.4586 and 8621 of 2014 of this Court);

               iv) Bedide Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana (Crl.P.No.10773, 10765, 11525, 11700 and 11701 of 2022 of this Court);

               v) Gaddam Laxmaiah and others v. The Commissioner and Inspector General ((2018) 1 ALD 532 (DB));

               vi) Mohd. Baktyaruddin v. Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd and 17 others (Writ Appeal No.611 of 2017 of this Court); and

               vii) Mr.P.Venkata Ravi Kishore v. M/s. JMR Developers Pvt. Ltd. (CCCA No.111 and 112 of 2021 of this Court).

Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 claiming that he purchased the property bearing Plot No.379 to an extent of 200 square yards in Sy.No.529 in the name of his wife through Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1392 of 1997, dated 14.03.1997 from Abdul Ali and Fateh Ali, who are the GPA holders of P.Ramulu, Sathaiah and P.Srinivas, and since then he has been in possession of the said property and obtained LRS proceedings and also constructed compound wall. Whereas the petitioner is claiming rights over the property bearing Plot No.379 to an extent of 200 square yards in basing upon the registered Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018.

7. It is not in dispute that originally P.Ramulu, Sathaiah and P.Srinivas are owners of the land to an extent of Ac.6-02 guntas situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District covered by , 531 and and they have jointly executed registered GPA bearing document No.2223 of 1991, dated 16.11.1991 in favour of Abdul Ali and Fateh Ali for development of the said land into residential house plots and given possession and also authorization to them for entering into the sale transactions. Pursuant to the same, the said GPA holders have obtained approved layout bearing No.3020/MP2/HUDA/02, dated 20.08.1992, and they have converted the land into residential plots, developed the same in the name of New Green City colony and they alienated the property to several individuals by executing registered documents.

8. There are specific allegations made in the complaint that the petitioner and other accused with a dishonest intention submitted documents mentioning and got it registered vide Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018, and basing upon the said document, claiming the property of wife of respondent No.2, covered by Sy.No.529.

9. After perusal of the final report and statements of the witnesses i.e. LWs.3 and 4, who are neighboring plot owners and the independent witnesses, they specifically stated in their statements that the plot bearing No.379 belongs to LWs.1 and 2 and the petitioner and other accused are causing disturbance. The property belongs to the wife of respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 after purchasing the said property has obtained LRS proceedings. The petitioner and others are claiming rights over the property basing on the false documents by misrepresenting the survey number. The final report also reveals that the petitioner and other accused were also involved in similar offence vide Crime No.897 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC by the Police, Rajendra Nagar and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed final report and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2960 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that there is a dishonest intention on his part from the inception to claim the rights over the property of wife of respondent No.2, who purchased the said property, through registered document as long as in the year 1997, by mentioning wrong survey number. Even according to the petitioner, he is claiming the very same property, which was covered under the registered Sale Deed of wife of respondent No.2.

10. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that original owners namely P.Ramulu, Sathaiah and P.Srinivas revoked the GPA by way of Cancellation Deed, bearing No.373 of 1995, dated 26.06.1995 and wife of respondent No.2 has purchased the property from GPA holders in the year 1997 and the same is invalid under law. Whereas the case of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the GPA was cancelled unilaterally without issuing any notice to the GPA holders and the same is not valid under law and original owners have not taken possession of the property from GPA holders through process of law. Whether basing upon the registered Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018, the petitioner is entitled to claim rights over the property or wife of respondent No.2 is entitled to claim rights over the property basing upon the registered Sale Deed, dated 14.03.1997; and whether the cancellation of GPA through document dated 20.06.1995 is valid or not, this Court is not inclined to deal with the above said contentions raised by the respective parties on the ground that the dispute in the present case is very limited that the allegations made against the petitioner that he along with other accused with a dishonest intention to claim the property of the wife of respondent No.2 brought the registered Sale Deed by changing the , and cheated her and whether the said allegations attracts the ingredients for the offence under Section 420 of IPC or not. The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Gaddam Laxmaiah supra, Mohd. Baktyaruddin supra, and Mr.P.Venkata Ravi Kishore supra are also pertaining to unilateral cancellation of the document.

11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the nature of allegations levelled in the complaint is civil in nature and civil case is pending between the parties and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings is clear abuse of process of law, is concerned, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that there is a dishonest intention on his part from the date of inception to claim the property of wife of respondent No.2 and brought the registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2018 in collusion with other accused and cheated her. It is trite law that mere pendency of the civil case is not a ground to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.

12. In Md. Allauddin Khan supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot quash proceedings by treating the matter as a civil dispute or by evaluating contradictions at the Section 482 stage. In Dr. Vijay Anand Reddy supra, the High Court of Telangana reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and not to short-circuit statutory remedies or prematurely end criminal proceedings. In Dr. A. Chandrasekhar supra, the High Court of Telangana reaffirmed that during investigation the High Court cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations and may quash only in rare cases to prevent injustice. In Bedide Yadagiri supra, the High Court of Telangana held that the presence of civil elements does not justify quashing where the complaint discloses cognizable offences, and such petitions lack merit.

13. In the present case, the material available on record prima facie indicates a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner in bringing the Sale Deed, dated 23.08.2018, into existence by altering the survey number from , thereby creating a cloud over the respondent’s title. Such conduct, coupled with the allegations of cheating and manipulation, clearly discloses cognizable offences and cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the dispute has civil elements. Consequently, the present case falls well within the parameters where criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold.

14. It is relevant to mention that in K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. ((2020) 14 SCC 552), the Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. ((2002) 1 SCC 555) and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal ((1999) 8 SCC 686), to reiterate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or financial transactions, and such a “civil profile” does not strip the act of its “criminal outfit.” Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings, stressing that criminal cases must proceed as per the Cr.P.C. and cannot be halted solely due to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or authority of the civil forum.

15. In S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2025 SCC OnLine SC1575) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that while civil and criminal proceedings may, in law, proceed simultaneously, a criminal prosecution can be sustained only where there is a clear presence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction.

16. It is very much relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ((2019) 14 SCC 350), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of rare case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2654 of 2022.

17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.2654 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

18. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a Government employee, his presence in C.C. No.2654 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific dates so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that any of the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this case.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.