1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.332 of 2025 on the file of Adilabad Rural Police Station, Adilabad District, registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 329(3), 324(4), 338, 336(3) 340(2) 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel on record for the petitioners and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.6 is alleged to be the defaulter of the loan obtained in the State Bank of India, Nizamabad, pursuant to which the Bank Officials have initiated action and subsequently, the District Collector has issued proceedings with a direction to the bank officials to take possession of the properties and hand over the same to the State Bank of Hyderabad, Assets Management Branch, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the accused No.6 approached the ED in the year 2016 for release of the property. But, the ED caused a CBI enquiry and on enquiry, it was concluded that that accused No.6 obtained loan by mortgaging the property by submitting fake documents. The same property was taken into custody by the ED. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 have sent accused Nos.3 to 5 and 9 along with JCB, Tippers and Tractors to illegally trespass and grab the said land. When the said persons criminally trespassed into the land to clean it, LW.3 objected the same and informed the matter to LW.2 over phone and LW.2 rushed there and told the said persons that the land belongs to SBI mortgage and ED. But, the accused threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, LW.2 informed the same to LW.1 and on the information of LW.2, LW.1 approached the District Collector, Adilabad and filed a complaint. On enquiry, the District Collector, Adilabad issued proceedings dated 01.10.2025 to the Tahsildar, Adilabad Urban Mandal with a direction to cancel the registered document which was issued to accused No.1, as the land is under the attachment of ED and also cancellation of supplementary sethwar document. Thus, the prosecution alleged that accused Nos.1 to 10 knowingly created a fake document and a fake supplementary sethwar and grabbed the land, which was under custody of SBI mortgage and ED.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner of an extent of Acs.2.10 gts., of agricultural land in Sy. No.65/B/1 of Bhuktapur, Adilabad, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2023 and he was issued the Pattadar Passbooks and he has also obtained supplementary sethwar. He intended to convert the land into Nala and has made an application to the Tahsildar, Adilabad Urban. When the Tashildar has not issued proceedings, the petitioner No.1 has filed WP No.21913/2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 28.07.2025 directing the Tahsildar to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner No.1. When the petitioner No.1 approached the Tahsildar with the orders of the High Court, the Tahisldar demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.1 refused to pay the same. The respondent No.4 was working in the police department and after his retirement has been appointed by the State Bank of India as Security Incharge to safeguard the properties under mortgage. The respondent No.4 has been claiming that the subject property is under the mortgage with SBI on the loan account granted to M/s.G.S. Oils Ltd., and thus, the respondent No.4 intervened and demanded Rs.5.00,000/- from the petitioner No.1 for converting the land into Nala. Thus, bearing grudge against the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.1 claiming to be the liquidator appointed by NCLT has filed a false complaint with the Adilabad Police saying that the mortgaged properties of M/s.G.S. Oils Ltd., are in the custody of the SBI and that the petitioners have trespassed. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a false case is foisted against the petitioners herein and that the allegations made in the complaint are utterly false and the petitioner No.1 is the bonafide purchaser of the land and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegations specifically point out the offences alleged against the petitioners and that the prosecution is yet to complete the investigation. The allegations point out the offences of serious nature, involving a huge extent of land and since the investigation is still in progress, no relief can be granted to the petitioners herein and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The allegations made in the complaint point out the offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 329(3), 324(4), 338, 336(3) 340(2) 351(3) read with 3(5) of BNS against the petitioners herein. The investigation is still in progress. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed copies of the sale deeds and other documents on record to show that the petitioner No.1 is the bonafide purchaser. This Court while deciding the quash petition cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the documents placed by the petitioners. The prime allegation refers to the offence of forgery. The truth is yet to be unraveled. Since the prima facie case is pointed out against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said process of investigation. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.