Telangana High Court
Pathri Vijayalaxmi And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 3 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2640 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2590 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhupalapally, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that accused persons offered to sell agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts, comprising Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.291/అ/5 and Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.291/అ/4, situated in one compact block at Kompelly Revenue Village (formerly within the limits of Pulluri Ramaiahpalle Gram Panchayat, now within the Bhupalapally Town Nagar Panchayat limits, Bhupalapally Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District), for valid sale consideration. The complainant accepted the offer. However, after receiving the sale consideration, the accused persons failed to execute a valid sale deed and instead threatened the complainant with dire 2 consequences if she or her family members approached the said property or demanded return of the amount. Hence, the present complaint.
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 13.10.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2025, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 and the same was returned with a postal endorsement 'addressee refused to receive the same' and filed memo before the Registry on 22.09.2025 vide USR No.104297 of 2025. He further submitted that as per Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1987, the refusal is deemed to be served. However, to give one more final opportunity to respondent No.2, posted to 27.10.2025. On 28.10.2025, at request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was posted to 03.11.2025. Today also, there is no representation for respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits.
4. Heard Mr.B.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offences. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the nature of the allegations against the petitioners is purely civil in nature. He further submitted that the petitioners are the absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.Nos.291/అ/5 and 291/అ/4, situated at Kompally Revenue Village (herein after referred to as 'subject property'), and they executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.2159/2016, dated 18.07.2016 in favour of respondent No.2. The petitioners have neither forged nor fabricated any documents, and therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted. Even as per the complaint, one Ms.Sadiq Sultana preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 10.02.2017 seeking cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners, though the said Sadiq Sultana has no right or interest over the subject property.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint on 12.10.2017, after a lapse of more than one year from the date of execution of the registered sale deed 4 i.e., 18.07.2016. He further submitted that the pendency of revenue proceedings between the petitioners and one Ms.Sadiq Sultana does not give rise to any cause of action for respondent No.2 to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners. He further submitted that, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 21.06.2017, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Joint Collector, and the said revision petition was transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal, by order dated 21.02.2021, dismissed the said revision petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.22033 of 2022 before this Court, and the same is pending consideration. He further submitted that the petitioners are prosecuting the revenue proceedings against Ms.Sadiq Sultana and have never trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 or disturbed her possession. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 herself stated that agents of the petitioners allegedly tried to disturb her possession, but she has not arrayed those persons as accused. Therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.
5
7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 has made specific allegations against the petitioners, and the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, has filed the final report and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. He further submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not has to be revealed after full-fledged trial. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming right, title, and interest over the subject property, and they jointly executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 on 18.07.2016. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners that they executed the said registered sale deed without having title over the subject property and there is no specific allegation that the said registered sale deed was forged or fabricated by the petitioners. The only allegation levelled against them is that one Sadiq Sultana filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 10.02.2017 against the petitioners, subsequent to the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. The record further reveals that, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 21.06.2017, the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (as amended), before the Joint Collector. However, in view of the provisions introduced under the Dharani Portal, 2020, the said revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal and the Special Tribunal dismissed the said revision on 12.10.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P.No.22033 of 2022. Upon perusal of the cause title of the said writ petition, it reveals that respondent No.2 has also been made a party respondent therein.
9. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are prosecuting the proceedings initiated by the said Sadiq Sultana in the interest of respondent No.2.
10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the revenue authorities for mutation of the name of respondent No.2 in 7 the revenue records and for issuance of E-Pattadar Passbooks, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 18.07.2016.
11. It is already stated supra that the proceedings initiated by the Sadiq Sultana pertains only to the issuance of Pattadar Passbooks and mutation of name of the petitioners in respect of the subject property. W.P.No.22033 of 2022 filed by the petitioners is pending before this Court. The orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Special Tribunal are subject to the outcome of the said writ petition.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2590 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhupalapally, is clear abuse of the process of law. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that the said proceedings are liable to be quashed, and accordingly quashed.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. 8
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Date: 03.11.2025 vsl