Telangana High Court
Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Telangana on 18 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1343 OF 2021
% Dated 18.09.2025
# Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by G. Madhusudhan Rao
and two others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court at Hyderabad
and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.T. Chandra Sehkhar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Gaddam Srinivas (R.2)
Mr. M. Vevekananda Reddy
Assistant Public Prosecutor
(R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2023) 3 SCC 423
2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948
3. 2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC)
4. (2015) 6 SCC 287
5. 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 447
6. (1989) 2 SCC 132
7. (2003) 4 SCC 139
8. (2020) 14 SCC 552
9. (2015) 3 SCC 424
10. (2019) 14 SCC 350
11. (2019) 20 SCC 539
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1343 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.17248 of 2019 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') by setting aside the orders, dated 19.02.2020, in Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2019passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed a private complaint on 13.04.2017 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, stating that petitioner No.1, Grandhe Developers Private Limited, being represented by its Directors, i.e., petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, entered into an agreement of sale with him on 12.03.2013 for the sale of open plots for a total sale 3 consideration of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. At the time of the agreement, an amount of Rs.91,55,000/- was paid as advance and the agreement was reduced into writing at the Registrar Office of the company situated at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. Subsequently, he paid further amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 13.03.2013, Rs.10,00,000/- on 15.03.2013 and Rs.5,45,000/- on 03.04.2013, totalling Rs.
22,45,000/- through RTGS to petitioner No.2. As per the terms of the agreement, the balance amount of Rs.73,45,000/- was to be paid within eight months and the final balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the plots. On the instructions of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, he transferred the balance consideration directly to the accounts of accused Nos.4 to 11, who were described as sleeping partners of the company. Despite receiving the entire sale consideration, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 failed to perform their part of the contract and on one pretext or another, deliberately postponed the registration of the plots and they misrepresented him that the plots were falling under FTL and that they were in the process of getting the land cleared by the Revenue Authorities. Believing their assurance, he waited for several months. However, to his 4 utter surprise, he subsequently realized that the petitioners and other accused persons had cheated him with a dishonest intention from the inception. Having been vexed with their evasive conduct, he issued a legal notice to the petitioner and accused Nos.4 to 11. Accused Nos.6, 7, 9 and 11 were received the notices and the notices in respect of remaining accused were returned un-served. In spite of service of the legal notice, the petitioners and accused Nos.4 to 11 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Left with no alternative, he approached the Hon'ble Court and lodged the present complaint against the petitioner and accused Nos.4 to 11 and the same was referred to the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the same, Crime No.98 of 2017 was registered. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a final report on 28.05.2018 referred the matter as 'false'. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed protest petition and the learned Magistrate taken cognizance against the petitioner and issued summons, by its order dated 19.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 and the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, 5 dismissed the same, by its order dated 19.02.2020. Hence, this criminal petition.
3. Heard Mr. T. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence. However, the petitioners were falsely implicated as accused in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC does not attract. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad on 13.04.2017 and the same was referred to the police. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.98 of 2017 was registered. The Investigating Officer, during the course of enquiry, sent the agreement of sale dated 12.03.2013 to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Government of Telangana, Telangana State Forensic 6 Science Laboratories issued report dated 28.04.2021 opining that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked A1 to A5 and S1 to S30 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked Q1 to Q6 and further, the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked A6 to A10 and S31 to S60 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked Q7 to Q9. Basing on the F.S.L. report, the Investigating Officer filed the final report on 28.05.2018, stating that as 'false'. In the said final report, the Investigating Officer specifically mentioned that the document i.e., agreement of sale, dated 12.03.2013, is not a genuine document, as it was prepared on 28.01.2013 on a Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper, thereby rendering it as a created and fabricated document. In spite of the same, the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, based on the protest petition filed by respondent No.2, took cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons, through order dated 19.11.2019, without considering the final report and without assigning any reasons and the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge also without considering the memorandum of grounds raised by the petitioners in the criminal revision 7 petition dismissed the same on 19.02.2020, simply confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. 4.2. He also submitted that the petitioners never received any amount from respondent No.2 nor cheated him, as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the ingredients under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC do not attract. He further submitted that petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 and the same was registered as Crime No.26 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the final report and the same was taken cognizance and numbered it as C.C.No.9582 of 2021 and the said case is pending before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.
4.3. He further submitted that basing upon the very same alleged agreement of sale, respondent No.2 had filed a suit, namely, O.S.No.223 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale and the said suit is pending. Hence, continuation of 8 criminal proceedings basing upon the fabricated document is clear abuse of the process of law.
4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Deepak Gaba and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1;
2. Thiyagarajan Anjayampati Sivaswamy v. The State of Telangana (Crl.P.No.3651 of 2023);
3. Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and another 2;
4. Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 3; and
5. Priyanka Srivastava and another v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another 4.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.1 is a private limited company and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are husband and wife respectively, are the Directors 1 (2023) 3 SCC 423 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948 3 2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC) 4 (2015) 6 SCC 287 9 of petitioner No.1 company. The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale, dated 12.03.2013, with respondent No.2 and they agreed to sell the open plots for a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- and respondent No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/- on various dates towards the sale consideration and he has to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- only. In spite of receiving a substantial amount towards sale consideration, the petitioners failed to execute the registered sale deed, On the contrary, with dishonest intention to cheat respondent No.2, they sold some of the plots to third parties. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 13.04.2017. However, at the instance of the petitioners, the Investigating Officer, without properly conducting a proper and fair investigation, filed the final report referring the case as 'false'.
5.2. Aggrieved thereby respondent No.2 filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of respondent No.2 as PW.1 and PW.2 and after going through the documents, filed by respondent No.2 i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.13, took cognizance against the petitioners and rightly issued summons, through order dated 19.11.2019. 10 He further submitted that learned Sessions Judge by giving cogent reasons dismissed the revision petition holding that the real facts as to whether there were any transactions between respondent No.2 and the petitioners under agreement of sale will come into light only on conducting full-fledged trial, by its order dated 19.02.2020. 5.3. He further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners that the stamp paper is a fabricated one is not true and correct. In fact, the stamp paper had purchased by petitioner No.2 only on the name of respondent No.2 and no prudent man will purchase the fabricated stamp paper by paying huge amount to the petitioners as sale consideration. He further submitted that the petitioners, since inception, are having ill-intention to cheat respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioners, even after receiving the sale consideration, sold some plots to third parties in spite of existence of agreement of sale between the petitioners and respondent No.2.
5.4. He further submitted that respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by way of cash and RTGS and a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- to accused Nos.4 to 11 by way of RTGS, and the petitioners 11 have received total amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 filed RTGS receipts before the learned Magistrate along with the protest petition. The learned Magistrate after due consideration of the statements of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.13, specifically held that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and accordingly took cognizance against the petitioners. 5.5. He further submitted that subsequent to the learned Magistrate taking cognizance, petitioner No.2 filed a complaint against respondent No.2 basing upon the alleged F.S.L. report. The Investigating Officer, without properly conducting an investigation, filed the charge sheet. In the said case, respondent No.2 filed discharge application seeking to discharge him in the said proceedings and the same is pending. He also submitted that respondent No.2 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the petitioners and others on 16.11.2022. The pendency of the civil suit is not a ground for seeking to quash the proceedings. There are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was confirmed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at 12 Hyderabad, and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. Thota Papi Reddy and others v. Gudalli Yellaiah land and others 5;
2. M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another 6; and
3. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and others 7.
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 lodged a private complaint against the petitioners and others on 13.04.2017 before the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Basing on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police. Accordingly, the police registered Crime No.98 of 2017 on 28.06.2018 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed 5 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 447 6 (1989) 2 SCC 132 7 (2003) 4 SCC 139 13 the final report on 28.05.2018 referred the matter as 'false'. On 13.11.2018, respondent No.2 filed protest petition invoking the provisions under Section 202 read with 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'). Along with the protest petition, he filed documents. The learned Magistrate after going through the sworn statements of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.13 held that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners, by its order dated 19.11.2019.
7. It is relevant to extract the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which reads as follows:
"By considering the sworn statement of complainant i.e., PW1, PW2 and Ex.P1 to P13 found a prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence cognizance of offence taken against A1 to A3 only for the offence U/s.420, 406 and 120(B) of IPC.
As there is no prima facie case made out against the other accused, Crl.M.P. is dismissed.
Registered as C.C.No.17248 of 2019 against the A1 to A3. Issue summons to A1 to A3. Call on 11.02.2020."
Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners filed 14 Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 invoking the provisions of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition on 19.02.2020 holding that the main grievance of the petitioner is that Ex.P.1 was fabricated one, whereas respondent No.2 claims that he paid huge amount by way of cash and also through RTGS in respect of transaction pursuant to Ex.P.1 and the real facts as to whether there were any transaction between the petitioners and respondent No.2 under agreement of sale-Ex.P.1 will come into light after full-fledged trial and that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners as they will be given an opportunity to cross-examine respondent No.2.
8. The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 28.04.2021, the agreement of sale executed on Hundred Rupees non-judicial stamp paper and the said stamp paper itself is a fabricated document and basing upon the said fabricated/created document, he is not entitled to prosecute the petitioner. Whereas, the specific case of respondent No.2 is that he 15 had paid substantial amounts pursuant to the agreement of sale by way of cash and also through RTGS and RTGS receipts and other documents are enclosed along with the protest petition and the petitioners with a dishonest intention cheated respondent No.2 and sold some of the plots to the third parties.
9. Whether respondent No.2 has paid any amount to the petitioners or to the other persons at the instance of the petitioners, whether the amounts transferred through RTGS pertaining to the agreement of sale dated 12.03.2013, whether agreement of sale and other documents relied upon by respondent No.2 are genuine or not, are disputed facts and the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the criminal petition and the same has to be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial only.
10. It is pertinent to mention that respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.223 of 2023 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12.03.2013 against the petitioners and other defendants on 16.11.2022, much after filing of the private complaint dated 13.04.2017, against the petitioners. It is trite law that mere pendency of civil cases between the parties does not bar to invoke criminal 16 jurisdiction provided the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In the case on hand, the allegations made in the suit in O.S.No.223 of 2023 as well as allegations made in C.C.No.17248 of 2019 are different and distinctive. Moreover, petitioner No.2 filed a complaint and the same was numbered as C.C.No.9582 of 2021, which is subsequent to the filing of private complaint by respondent No.2.
11. In Deepak Gaba supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of factual allegations establishing the essential ingredients of Section 405 IPC such as entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or conversion in violation of law or contract a mere monetary dispute or an allegedly wrong demand does not constitute an offence under Sections 405/406 IPC. It further emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as instruments of harassment or vengeance, and when allegations in the complaint and pre-summoning evidence, even if accepted on their face, do not disclose the commission of an offence or are absurd and inherently improbable, the High Court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash such 17 proceedings.
12. In Thiyagarajan Aniayampati Sivaswamy supra, the Telangana High Court quashed the cognizance order of the Special Judge for Economic Offences on the ground that it was cryptic and passed without application of mind. The Court reiterated that issuing process and summoning an accused is a serious judicial act which requires the Magistrate/Special Court to record satisfaction, even briefly, that a prima facie case exists. Mere mechanical or bald orders stating that cognizance is taken are insufficient. Relying on various Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that non-speaking orders at the stage of cognizance burden courts with unnecessary trials and cause undue harassment to accused. Directions were issued to trial courts in Telangana to ensure that orders under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C., cognizance on charge sheets, protest petitions, and committals must briefly reflect judicial satisfaction. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, with liberty to the Special Judge to pass a fresh, reasoned order.
13. In Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a petition seeks quashing of 18 an FIR together with the charge-sheet and the cognizance- taking order, if any, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ("BNSS") is invoked, the High Court (or Division Bench) has jurisdiction to entertain and mould such relief, so long as the requisite facts are on record and the court is satisfied that quashing is warranted in the circumstances.
14. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. supra, the Supreme Court held that if the complainant's grievance is merely that a sum of money is due and payable, the proper remedy is to file a civil suit for recovery and not a criminal complaint alleging cheating or criminal breach of trust. The Court noted that in that case no civil suit had been filed and even the period of limitation for such recovery appeared to have expired. The Court further emphasised, while concluding, that despite the replacement of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, courts have continued to show a casual approach in failing to appreciate the fine distinction between the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
15. In Priyanka Srivastava supra, the Supreme Court cautioned against the routine and irresponsible filing of 19 applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was held that such applications must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant to ensure accountability, and the Magistrate, in appropriate cases, may verify the truth and veracity of the allegations. The Court observed that many such applications are filed mechanically to harass individuals, including those discharging statutory duties, and stressed that criminal courts cannot be misused as instruments for settling scores.
16. In Thota Papi Reddy supra, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India Carat (P) Ltd. supra, held that even if the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C concludes that no case is made out, the Magistrate is not bound by such conclusion and can, in exercise of powers under Section 190(1)(b), independently apply his mind to the material collected during investigation, take cognizance, and issue process against the accused, without being obliged to follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
17. In Roshanlal Agarwal supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of issuing process under 20 Section 204 CrPC, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. It was further clarified, following U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B., that there is no legal requirement for the Magistrate to record detailed reasons while issuing summons, and the process cannot be quashed merely because the order taking cognizance is not a speaking order.
18. It is relevant to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. 8, 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 a civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal, 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 8 (2020) 14 SCC 552 21 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." The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be limited to rare and exceptional cases. It emphasized that just because a transaction involves a commercial or monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule out criminal intent or proceedings. Ultimately, the 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.
19. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar supra, 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 22 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 is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.17248 of 2019.
20. It is relevant to mention that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepka Gupta 9, it was held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required only to see whether a prima facie case is made out and he is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence or undertake a detailed inquiry into the merits. If the Magistrate, at the stage of cognizance, enters into analysis the evidence or evaluates the defence, it would amount to premature adjudication, which is impermissible in law.
21. It is pertinent to mention that in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding against the accused; 9
(2015) 3 SCC 424) 10 (2019) 14 SCC 350 23 he is not required to evaluate the merits or sufficiency of the material, nor to determine whether it would ultimately lead to conviction.
22. It is also relevant to mention that in State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of cognizance on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that sufficient ground exists to proceed, and not to apply a strict standard of proof or consider possible defences. Interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction by examining merits at this nascent stage was erroneous. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court was set aside and the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the supplementary charge-sheet and issuing summons was restored, with a direction for the accused to appear and the trial to proceed in accordance with law.
23. In plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that sufficient grounds exists for proceeding further and to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused and the 11 (2019) 20 SCC 539 24 Magistrate is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence or undertake a detailed enquiry into the merits of the case, nor is it necessary to examine whether the material would ultimately result in conviction.
24. It is already stated supra, the learned Magistrate after going through the statements of PWs.1 and 2 and the documents which are enclosed along with protest petition i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.13, specifically held that there is a prima face case against the petitioners and accordingly took cognizance. The learned Sessions Judge, upon due consideration confirmed the said order by giving specific reasons and dismissed the Crl.R.P.
25. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or procedural impropriety warranting interference with the order passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad in Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 dated 19.02.2020, confirming the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, or any ground to quash C.C.No.17248 of 2019 to exercise the powers conferred under Sections 482 of the 25 Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be dismissed.
26. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioners in C.C.No.17248 of 2019 is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioners shall represent through their counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioners on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for their appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the trial Court shall decide the matter on own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order or in the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2019 as well as the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.2600 of 2019.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:18 .09.2025 L.R. copy to be marked mar Note: Issue C.C. in a week.