Telangana High Court
Shankervenkatesh vs The State Of Telangana on 10 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5402 of 2021
DATE OF ORDER:10.03.2026
Between:
Shanker Venkatesh
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & others
...Respondents
ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the order dated 27.04.2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.95 of 2018, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, dismissing the Protest Petition in Crime No.51 of 2017, dated 16.01.2017 registered by Hayathnagar Police Station.
2. Heard Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2
ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021
3. The facts of the case are that it is alleged that accused Nos.1 & 2 have induced the defacto complainant to execute a Sale Deed dated 24.09.2016 for Ac.4.13 guntas of land for a valid sale consideration of Rs.60,73,000/- and that the defacto complainant never intended to sell the property and that he did not receive any amount towards sale consideration. It is alleged that the said Sale Deed was executed on account of the trust over the said two persons and the defacto complainant has entered into the said agreement with a hope that they would succeed in the pending case before the High Court. It is alleged that the accused have induced the defacto complainant and got the Sale Deed executed with an intention to cheat him and grab his property and that they have acted in conspiracy and thus, the defacto complainant has filed a complaint before the Hayathnagar Police Station vide Crime No.51 of 2017 and on investigation, the Police have filed a final report stating that the case is 'Civil in Nature'. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant has filed a Protest Petition and the Trial Court after due enquiry, has dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the defacto complainant has preferred Revision Petition before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide Crl.R.P.No.95 of 2018 and the same was dismissed vide orders dated 27.04.2021. 3
ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021 Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition is filed seeking to set-aside the order passed in the revision petition.
4. The learned petitioner's counsel submitted that the Police have erred in noting that the matter is 'Civil in Nature' and that they ought to have investigated it thoroughly and that the Trial Court has also not considered his Protest Petition and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. It is a fact that the defacto complainant has not received any sale consideration in the alleged transaction and that the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have supported the case of the defacto complainant. The Trial Court failed to consider the same and has dismissed the Protest Petition. The Revisional Court also committed an error by confirming the orders of the Trial Court. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has trusted the accused and the accused cheated him and got the Sale Deed executed. That the matter has to be tried to bring out the truth and hence, cognizance of the offences have to be taken against the accused. He therefore prayed to set-aside the orders passed by the Revisional Court and to direct the Trial Court to take cognizance of the said offences against the accused.
4
ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021
5. The learned respondent's counsel has submitted that the defacto complainant is raising two rival contentions, that the defacto complainant himself says that he has voluntarily executed the Sale Deed and on another breath he says that he was induced by the accused to execute the Sale Deed. That itself shows the attitude of the defacto complainant which falsifies the complaint itself. He further submitted that when the defacto complainant has executed the Agreement voluntarily, he cannot allege any dishonest intention against the petitioners. Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have fairly dismissed the Protest Petition and the Revision Petition. He therefore prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition by upholding the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court.
6. Perused the record. The defacto complainant alleges that the accused Nos.1 & 2 have induced him to execute Sale Deed to an extent of Ac.04.13 guntas and that without receiving any sale consideration, he has executed the same with a hope to succeed in the case pending before the High Court. Just based on the inducement made by the accused, the defacto complainant came under the influence of the same and got it registered without receiving any sale consideration. It is also pertinent to make a note 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021 of the contents of the complaint in this regard. The same are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:-
"I signed champertous and maintenance agreement only with the fond hope of getting successful in the High Court of Hyderabad but without knowledge that it was illegal."
7. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 & 2 have acted in conspiracy and induced the defacto complainant to enter into a Champertous Agreement to grab his property. The petitioner's counsel contends that the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court failed to take note of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses who supported the case of the defacto complainant. A perusal of the statement of the revision petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. discloses that he himself has executed the Champertous and Maintenance Agreement knowing fully well that such type of agreement, which is illegal, would not be of any help to him and they have entered into such an agreement with the respondents for financing their suit. It further discloses that he entered into the said agreement with a hope that they would succeed in the pending case before the High Court in their favour. The said statement does not disclose any coercion exerted by the accused herein nor does it disclose any undue influence exerted by the accused. Further, it is made out that the 6 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021 agreement is executed out of his own free will and consent. Such agreements are bad in the eye of law but still the defacto complainant entered into such an agreement with an intention to succeed in a case pending before the High Court. Now, subsequently, he changed his stand and filed the complaint stating that he was cheated by the accused by inducing him and getting the agreement executed. The alleged inducement is not put forth through any of the witnesses examined on his behalf. A perusal of the statement of his brother who was examined as LW2, also shows that the subject land is under title dispute and that when the accused stated that they would fight with the case pending over the land, they have entered into Champertous and Maintenance agreement and that his son also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of accused No.1 and later, it was cancelled vide Doc.No.521 of 2016 and that as per the agreement, half of the land was conveyed vide Sale Deed in favour of accused Nos.1 & 2 and that they have remained in possession of the remaining land. Thus, the said execution of Champertous Agreement is elicited from his brother also. So also, the statement of LW3 discloses the said fact.
8. The learned petitioner's counsel further contended that the statement of LW1 discloses that he had not received a single rupee 7 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021 from the transaction and that it shows that he was induced by the accused. The statement of LW1 clearly discloses that he had entered into a Champertous Agreement with a hope that the accused would help them in fighting the case pending before the High Court. Thus, he has willingly entered into the agreement knowing fully well that he would not receive any consideration for the same and now he cannot turn around and say that he was not paid any sale consideration and that he was induced by the accused Nos.1 &2. Even the statements of witnesses do not aid the case of the defacto complainant in any way to hold that the accused have induced the defacto complainant in any manner to cheat him. Further, the defacto complainant failed to place any documents on record to show that accused Nos.1 & 2 have admitted that they have not paid any amount for execution of the Sale Deed. The offences alleged against the accused are the Criminal Breach of Trust, Criminal Conspiracy, Common intention of Cheating. The elements of inducement and cheating do not get attracted against the accused as the defacto complainant has willingly entered into that agreement. In the same fashion, if he has entrusted the property to the accused and if he has malafidely put the property to his own use, then the ingredients of criminal breach of trust would get attracted. But, in this case, the agreement itself is a Champertous agreement to 8 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021 facilitate a success in a pending case in the High Court. Thus, to achieve a purpose, the task was assigned. In lieu of the same, the defacto complainant has executed the agreement. Therefore, it cannot be taken as entrustment of any property. When there is no entrustment of the property, the offence of Criminal breach of trust cannot be established. Hence, the petitioner's contentions are not supported by any of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or by any documents.
9. Further, the so called champertous agreement was not placed before the Trial Court or the Revisional Court and they failed to produce the same even before this Court. Without there being any supportive statement or document in favour of the defacto complainant, the allegations in the complaint are found to be baseless. The defacto complainant himself has entered into an illegal agreement and further says that he was induced to enter into such illegal agreement. Since the allegations in the complaint are found to be baseless, there is no point to allow the Protest Petition. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the Protest Petition and the same was confirmed by the Revisional Court. The orders of Revisional Court are found to be well reasoned and do not need any 9 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021 interference by this Court and the same are upheld. Hence, the present petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
11. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:10.03.2026 ysk 10 ETD,J Crl.P.No.5402_2021 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5402 of 2021 DATE OF ORDER:10.03.2026