1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.10553 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above Calendar Case.

2. Heard Mr. J. Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

3.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant, represented by her General Power of Attorney holder, filed the present complaint before the learned Magistrate seeking a direction to the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, to register a case and investigate the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 383, 385, 405, 408, 420, 464, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").

               3.2. According to the complaint, the complainant is the absolute owner of a commercial plot admeasuring 350 square yards situated at Lahari Green Park, Bowrampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.11020 of 2007. It is her case that, in April 2015, owing to the medical treatment of her husband, she borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from accused No.1, who is alleged to be a private money lender, and agreed to execute an agreement of sale as security for the loan. However, accused No.1 allegedly induced her to execute a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (for short, "AGPA") by representing that it was merely a security document, which would be cancelled upon repayment of the loan.

               3.3. The complainant further alleges that she regularly paid interest at the rate of 3% per month until November 2016, after which accused No.1 allegedly absconded in connection with an investigation relating to a “call money racket.” It is further alleged that, in August 2019, she came to know that accused No.1, by misusing the AGPA, had executed a registered Sale Deed dated 06.08.2019, bearing Document No.8364 of 2019, in favour of accused No.2, who is his daughter. The complainant contends that she never intended to alienate the subject property, which is valued at more than Rs.2 crores, and that the execution of the said Sale Deed was a fraudulent act intended to cause wrongful loss to her and wrongful gain to the accused.

               3.4. It is also alleged that, despite approaching the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Balanagar Zone, no action was taken on her complaint. Consequently, she filed the present complaint seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into the matter. Pursuant thereto, the complaint was taken on file, investigation was conducted, a charge sheet was filed, and, consequently, the case was numbered as a Calendar Case.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject transaction was a genuine sale transaction and not a loan transaction, as alleged by the complainant. It is contended that the complainant had voluntarily agreed to sell the subject property for a total sale consideration of Rs.17,49,000/-; that the entire sale consideration was paid; that possession of the property, along with the original title documents, was delivered to the first petitioner; and that a registered AGPA was executed in furtherance of the said transaction. It is further submitted that, in exercise of the authority conferred under the registered AGPA, the first petitioner lawfully executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of the second petitioner.

               4.2. According to the petitioners, the dispute, if any, arises out of contractual obligations embodied in registered documents and is purely civil in nature, but has been deliberately given a criminal colour by the complainant. It is argued that the complainant, having admittedly executed the registered AGPA and received the sale consideration, cannot subsequently contend that the document was intended merely as security for a loan. The petitioners further submit that the complainant neither sought cancellation of the AGPA nor challenged the subsequent Sale Deed before the competent civil court prior to initiating the criminal proceedings, which, according to them, itself demonstrates that the complaint is an afterthought. It is also contended that the complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, as there is no material to indicate any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the transaction.

               4.3. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint has been lodged after an unexplained and inordinate delay of several years, allegedly on account of the substantial appreciation in the value of the property, with the sole objective of exerting pressure upon the petitioners. It is further contended that the General Power of Attorney holder of the complainant was not competent either to institute the criminal complaint or to depose regarding matters involving the complainant's personal knowledge. On these grounds, it is argued that the learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance of the offences without proper application of mind and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

               4.4. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 INSC 151; Urmilan Devi v. Balram, 2025 INSC 915; Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 536; Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690; A.M. Mohan v. State represented by SHO, (2024) 6 SCC 222; Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2696; R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1540; Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, (2022) 7 SCC 124; Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751; and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736.

               4.5. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that, for quashing criminal proceedings, the complaint must disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; that, to constitute the offence of cheating, dishonest or fraudulent intention must exist from the very inception of the transaction; and that criminal proceedings cannot be employed as a means of recovering money or property where the dispute substantially pertains to contractual obligations. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot ordinarily coexist on the same factual foundation and that the learned Magistrate is under a duty to apply judicial mind to ascertain whether the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offences before taking cognizance. Accordingly, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings in the Calendar Case pending against them.

5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the complaint, read as a whole, clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, does not warrant interference under Section 482 of the CrPC. It is submitted that the respondent is the absolute owner of the subject property and had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the first petitioner by executing an agreement of sale merely as security for the loan. However, taking advantage of the respondent's financial distress, the first petitioner allegedly induced her to execute a registered AGPA by falsely representing that it would serve only as security for the loan and would be cancelled upon repayment of the loan. It is contended that the respondent never intended to alienate the subject property and that, by abusing the authority conferred under the registered AGPA, the first petitioner fraudulently executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of his daughter, the second petitioner. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, these allegations disclose deception and dishonest intention on the part of the first petitioner from the very inception of the transaction, thereby constituting the offences of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust. It is further submitted that the defence set up by the petitioners and the disputed factual issues arising between the parties can only be adjudicated upon during a full-fledged trial and not in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

               5.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the delay in lodging the complaint has been satisfactorily explained, as the respondent became aware of the impugned Sale Deed only in the year 2019, whereupon she immediately approached the police authorities. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offences and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings cannot be characterized as an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

7. The gravamen of the complaint is that the respondent/complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the first petitioner and executed a AGPA only by way of security for the loan. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the transaction was an outright sale supported by payment of the entire sale consideration, delivery of possession, and execution of the registered AGPA, pursuant to which a registered Sale Deed was subsequently executed in favour of the second petitioner. Thus, the core dispute between the parties pertains to the true nature of the underlying transaction and the intention with which the registered AGPA came to be executed.

8. At this stage, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness of the rival versions. The scope of interference under Section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The Court is required to examine whether the allegations contained in the complaint, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or whether the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, continue to govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings. The consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand (supra) is that every breach of contract or property dispute cannot be given the colour of a criminal offence and that the sine qua non for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC is the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction. Likewise, the execution of a registered Sale Deed or transfer of immovable property pursuant to a registered document would not, by itself, constitute the offences of cheating or forgery unless the essential ingredients of those offences are specifically pleaded and prima facie established.

9. In the instant case, however, the complainant has specifically alleged that the registered AGPA itself was obtained by practising deception under the guise of a security document for a loan and that the authority conferred thereunder was subsequently misused to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the daughter of the first petitioner. Whether the document was voluntarily executed as part of a genuine sale transaction, as contended by the petitioners, or whether it was procured by fraudulent inducement and subsequently misused contrary to the understanding between the parties, as alleged by the complainant, are matters requiring evidence. The determination of these issues would necessarily involve an appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, including an examination of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the registered documents and the subsequent conduct of the parties. Such an exercise cannot appropriately be undertaken in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. It is equally well settled that the mere availability of a civil remedy is not, by itself, a ground to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of a cognizable offence. At the same time, criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked merely for settling civil disputes. Therefore, the Court must strike a balance between preventing abuse of the criminal process and ensuring that a legitimate prosecution is not stifled at the threshold.

10. In the facts of the present case, the allegations contained in the complaint raise disputed questions of fact regarding the true nature of the transaction, the intention of the parties at the inception, and the alleged misuse of the registered AGPA culminating in the execution of the registered Sale Deed. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that such issues cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction unless the allegations are shown to be inherently improbable or completely devoid of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Consequently, this Court would be slow to interdict the prosecution at the threshold.

11. Resultantly, in the absence of any merit, the Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all factual and legal defences available to them before the trial Court at the appropriate stage, where the evidence can be appreciated and adjudicated in accordance with law.

Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.