Telangana High Court
Suryakanth Sanghi @ Suryakantha Sangi vs The State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2169 of 2026
Between :
Suryakanth Sanghi @ Suryakantha Sangi
S/o Late T.D. Sanghi, aged about 57
years, occ: Business, R/o. Villa No.118,
RV Somwarti, Luxury Villas I-Block,
Defence Employees Colony, Abhyudaya
Nagar, Kismatpur, KV Ranga Reddy,
Telangana and another.
....Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public
Prosecutor For, High Court for the State of
Telangana and another.
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.03.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.2169 of 2026
% Dated 13.03.2026
# Suryakanth Sanghi @ Suryakantha
Sangi S/o Late T.D. Sanghi, aged
about 57 years, occ: Business, R/o.
Villa No.118, RV Somwarti, Luxury
Villas I-Block, Defence Employees
Colony, Abhyudaya Nagar, Kismatpur,
KV Ranga Reddy, Telangana and
another.
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana Rep. by its
Public Prosecutor For, High Court for
the State of Telangana and another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.Vishal Gandhi
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mrs.S.Madhavi, Learned Asst.P.P.
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.Tupakula Nikhil
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2018(7) SCC 581
2. AIR 2025 SC 4620
3. (2021) 5 SCC 795
4. (2001) 7 SCC 690
5. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355
6. (2021) 19 SCC 401
7. (2014) 8 SCC 273
8. 2026 SCC OnLine 162
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Criminal Petition No.2169 of 2026
Date: 13.03.2026
Between:
Suryakanth Sangi @ Suryakantha Sangi and another
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2
And
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor
and another.
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1644 of 2025 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS').
2. Heard Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel, representing Mr.Vishal Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr.R.K.Chitta, learned counsel, 4 representing Mr.Tupakula Nikhil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case:
On 29.08.2025 respondent No.2-Sri G.S.V.V. Satyanarayana lodged a complaint stating that the accused/petitioner No.1, induced him into a fraudulent property transaction. Petitioner No.1 claimed to be the GPA holder of land admeasuring 1104.72 square yards situated in Sy.No.11/32 at Konapeta Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, and executed an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 with the respondent No.2 for the said land. Believing the words of the petitioners, respondent No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.1,44,84,000/- to petitioner No.1 between 21.10.2016 and 20.01.2021. Later, respondent No.2 discovered that the documents shown by the petitioners were forged and misrepresented and in the genuine document bearing No.2341/1995, the boundaries were mentioned as South: 60 feet and West: 40 feet road. However, in the GPA executed by petitioner No.2 in favour of petitioner No.1 on 22.11.2005, the northern boundary was falsely shown as a 30 feet road. Further, the GPA mentioned an incorrect link document number as 2391/1995 instead of the genuine document No.2341/1995. Thus, the petitioners have allegedly fabricated and forged the documents and cheated the complainant to a tune of 5 Rs.1,44,84,000/-. Based on the said complaint a case has been registered for the aforementioned offences.
4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature, in respect of the immovable property i.e. house site. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioners have executed an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 and received part of the sale consideration and in the agreement of sale, petitioners mentioned that they acquired the property through document No.2391 of 1995, though correct document number is 2341 of 1995, and the boundaries mentioned in the agreement of sale were not tallied with the boundaries mentioned in the document No.2341 of 1995, the said allegations would not attract the ingredients for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS.
4.2 He further submitted that respondent No.2 himself has not complied the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, dated 21.10.2016. Petitioner No.1 got issued a legal notice on 28.12.2017 to respondent No.2 and two others, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 6 entered between respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1 and others stands cancelled and terminated and respondent No.2 and others are not having any right to claim the said property. Petitioner No.2 also filed Caveat before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Miyapur, on 19.01.2018. Respondent No.2 has not taken any steps for seeking enforcement of the agreement of sale by approaching a competent Civil Court, on the other hand, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint on 29.08.2025 after lapse of more than 4 ½ years and respondent No.2 himself in the complaint specifically mentioned that the reasons for delay in lodging the complaint as "the complainant was waiting for the accused persons to settle the matter". Hence, the complaint/ crime is liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation. 4.3 He also submitted that the boundaries mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 as well as the boundaries mentioned in the General Power of Attorney dated 22.11.2005, are one and the same. The link document number is mentioned in the G.P.A. as '2391 of 1995'. Pursuant to the same, in agreement of sale very same number is mentioned and the same is not an intentional and it is purely a typographical error and it does not attract the ingredients for the offences levelled against the petitioners.7
4.4 He further submitted that respondent No.2 has filed complaint by making omnibus allegations by giving it a criminal colour only on the ground that the statutory period of limitation for seeking civil law remedy through an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 is expired. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is not permitted under law. 4.5 In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments;
i) Shiela Sebastian vs. R.Jawaharaj and another 1; and
ii) Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand and others 2;
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners from the date of inception with a dishonest intention and also with mischief have executed an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 to respondent No.2 and received huge amount of Rs.1,44,84,000/- from 21.10.2016 to 20.01.2021 and in the agreement of sale, they have mentioned that the property was acquired through registered sale deed vide document No.2391 of 1995, dated 25.02.1995. Respondent No.2 came to know about the fraud played by the petitioners and that the petitioners without 1 2018(7) SCC 581 2 AIR 2025 SC 4620 8 having any manner of right in respect of the subject property with a dishonest intention executed the document.
5.2 He further submitted that in the agreement of sale, they have mentioned that they have acquired the property through the registered Sale Deed Document bearing number as 2391 of 1995, though the correct document number is 2341 of 1995. The boundaries mentioned in document No.2341 of 1995 and the boundaries mentioned in the agreement of sale are totally different.
Respondent No.2 has not received the alleged legal notice dated 28.12.2017 issued by petitioner No.1. The alleged legal notice does not contain the signature of the Advocate and also the petitioners have not placed any iota of evidence i.e. registered post slips or acknowledgment cards except filing unsigned copy of legal notice. 5.3 He also submitted that respondent No.2 has not received the alleged copy of caveat petition filed by petitioner No.1 and another. In the copy of the caveat petition, in para No.4 of the affidavit, there are unfilled blanks. The allegations made in the complaint attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS and the petitioners are not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage.
95.4 In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments;
i) Mohammad M. Khalid and others vs. P.P., Hyderabad and another, (Criminal Petition No.6378 of 2015, dated 18.11.2025);
ii) Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 3;
iii) Ravinder Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab 4; and
iv) Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others 5.
6. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
6.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the ingredients for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of LW.1 and the investigation is under progress. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedings at this stage.
Analysis:
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. Even according to the parties, it is an undisputed fact that 3 (2021) 5 SCC 795 4 (2001) 7 SCC 690 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355 10 petitioner No.1 had executed the agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.2 and others on 21.10.2016 to an extent of 2,162 square yards in Sy.No.11/32 part, Khanapet Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, wherein it is stated that petitioner No.2 is absolute owner and possessor of the property and the same was purchased through registered sale deed bearing No.2391 of 1995 and he had executed G.P.A. in favour of petitioner No.1. Pursuant to the said G.P.A., he executed the agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.2.
8. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that petitioner No.1 had executed an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 in his favour in respect of 1104.72 square yards and from 21.10.2016 to 20.01.2021 petitioner No.1 had received huge amount of Rs.1,44,84,000/-. Respondent No.2 came to know that the link document mentioned in the agreement of sale is not a genuine one. The actual document number is 2341 of 1995 but not 2391 of 1995. Petitioners with a dishonest intention created and fabricated document i.e. G.P.A. dated 22.11.2005, wherein it is mentioned that petitioner No.2 has acquired the property through registered sale deed document bearing No.2391 of 1995, dated 25.02.1995 and mentioned wrong boundaries in the schedule of property. Basing on the said fabricated document, accused No.1 while 11 executing an agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.2 and others mentioned the source of title through document No.2391 of 1995 and mentioned the very same wrong boundaries. As on the date of execution of the alleged agreement of sale, there is a cloud on the property and the boundaries are not tallying with the original document i.e. registered sale deed document No.2341 of 1995. Whether the petitioners, with a conspiracy, and with dishonest intention to cause mischief to respondent No.2, have executed fabricated G.P.A. and basing on the said G.P.A., petitioner No.1 has executed the agreement of sale and mentioned the wrong link document number, boundaries and received huge amount from respondent No.2 or not, are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress.
9. The specific case of respondent No.2 that he has not received the alleged legal notice dated 28.12.2017 and also caveat notice is concerned, the petitioners have not placed any material to show that the legal notice dated 28.12.2017 and copy of caveat petition were received by respondent No.2. Whether respondent No.2 had received the legal notice about the termination of the agreement of sale, and whether respondent No.2 had received caveat petition or 12 not, are also disputed facts, and the same have to be revealed during the course of investigation only.
10. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint after lapse of more than nine years is concerned, there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 in the complaint that pursuant to the agreement of sale, petitioner No.1 had received huge amount of Rs.1,44,84,000/- on various dates from 21.10.2016 till 20.01.2021 and after coming to know about the alleged fabricated document, dated 22.11.2005, he lodged the complaint.
11. In Sheila Sebastian supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for the offence of forgery under Sections 463-465 IPC, it must be established that the accused himself made a "false document"
within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, as making of a false document is the foundational ingredient of the offence. The Court observed that a person who is not the maker of the forged document cannot be held liable for forgery merely because he derives benefit from it. Similarly, in Arshad Neyaz Khan supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere breach of a contractual obligation or failure to honour an agreement does not by itself constitute the offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust 13 unless it is shown that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention from the very inception of the transaction. It was further observed that when the allegations essentially disclose a civil dispute and the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are absent, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.
12. In the case on hand, it is an undisputed fact that petitioner No.1 executed an agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 in favour of respondent No.2 representing that petitioner No.2 was the absolute owner of the property by virtue of registered sale deed No.2391 of 1995 and a G.P.A. executed in favour of petitioner No.1. The specific allegation in the complaint is that pursuant to the said agreement, petitioner No.1 received a huge amount of Rs.1,44,84,000/- from respondent No.2 between 21.10.2016 and 20.01.2021, and that the petitioners, with dishonest intention from the inception, fabricated the G.P.A. by mentioning a wrong link document i.e., document No.2391 of 1995 instead of the actual document No.2341 of 1995 and also mentioned incorrect boundaries. Whether the petitioners intentionally created and fabricated the documents and dishonestly induced respondent No.2 to part with the said amounts are disputed questions of fact and the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. 14 In such circumstances, the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the petitioners does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and that at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to examine the correctness or reliability of the allegations, and if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the investigation should ordinarily be permitted to proceed. Similarly, in Ravinder Kumar supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the determination of guilt depends upon appreciation of evidence and resolution of disputed questions of fact, such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the matter must be left to be decided during trial. Likewise, in Muskan supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, the Court should not conduct a mini-trial or assess the sufficiency of evidence and as such matters are required to be examined during investigation or trial. This Court, in Mohammad M. Khalid supra, held that the mere pendency of civil proceedings relating to a Development Agreement is not a ground 15 to quash criminal proceedings, when the complaint contains specific allegations indicating dishonest intention from the inception. Since the complaint disclosed prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences, this Court held that the proceedings in a criminal case cannot be quashed at the threshold.
14. The above principles are applicable to the facts of the present case, as the complaint contains specific allegations that the petitioners executed the agreement of sale dated 21.10.2016 by referring to an incorrect link document, mentioned wrong boundaries, and received huge amounts from respondent No.2, and the material placed on record also shows that the dispute relates to correctness of title documents, execution of G.P.A., receipt of consideration and service of notices, all of which are disputed questions of fact requiring investigation.
15. It is relevant to mention that in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 6, the power to quash an F.I.R. is to be exercised sparingly and only in rare and exceptional cases, since F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia. In the case on hand, the F.I.R. prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences, therefore, interference at the threshold would be impermissible under law. 6 (2021) 19 SCC 401 16
16. The entire allegations levelled in the complaint taken on face value, this Court is of the prima facie view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 338 of BNS are not attracted. It is relevant to extract the Section 338 of the BNS, which reads as follows:
"S.338 - Forgery of valuable security, will etc:
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquaintance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
17. The allegations made in the complaint does not fall within the ambit of Section 338 of the BNS and the other offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS are punishable with imprisonment of below seven years and up to seven years. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer ought to have follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 7, and 7(2014) 8 SCC 273 17 Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 8.
18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not fall under rarest of the rare case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this stage. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, and in view of the reasons mentioned in para Nos.16 and 17 supra, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra and Satender Kumar Antil supra.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to submit their reply/statements by raising all the pleas available to them including the documents, which are in their possession, to the Investigating Officer.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO Date: 13.03.2026.
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o:
pgp 8 2026 SCC OnLine 162