Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1405 (TS)

Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Telangana

2025-11-06

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2021 on the file of the Toli Chowki Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 , 506 and 380 r/w 34 and 445 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the de-facto complainant alleged that he purchased Plot No.53, admeasuring 220 sq.yards in Sy.No.160 (Part), Sy.Nos.60 and 70, from Khaja Gulshan @ Daulat Gulshan in the name of his wife, Rizwana Begum, in 1992, and constructed a room and compound wall with a gate. He kept two cars, Toyota Qualis (AP15S1899) and Maruti Swift (AP23R0304) in the premises. On 19.01.2021, at about 6:00 a.m., Imrana Begum, Mohammed Ibrahim, and about 40 to 50 others, allegedly under the instigation of local leaders, trespassed into the property after breaking the locks and nameplate, abused and threatened him with dire consequences, and stole the vehicles, household articles, and Rs.20,000 cash. He further alleged that the Deputy Municipal Commissioner colluded with the said persons in issuing false and fabricated assessments. Hence, the present complaint has been registered for the aforementioned offences. 3. Heard Mr.N.Manohar, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Ali Bin Syed, learned counsel representing Mr.Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime as accused No.2. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had purchased property admeasuring 240 sq.yards, bearing House No.8-1-364/A/53, situated at Adam Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, from the rightful owner through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.403/21, by paying valuable sale consideration, and since then he has been in possession of the said property. Hence, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. He further submitted that prior to purchasing the aforesaid property, the petitioner issued a public notice inviting objections, if any, from the general public with regard to the said property. However, no objections were raised by anyone, including the de-facto complainant. Hence, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. He further submitted that prior to purchasing the aforesaid property, the petitioner issued a public notice inviting objections, if any, from the general public with regard to the said property. However, no objections were raised by anyone, including the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that the nature of the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.96 of 2022, before the learned XXIV Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking declaration and recovery of possession of the subject property and the same is pending consideration. He further submitted that the petitioner has never tried to trespass into the subject property or to grab any portion of the subject property, as alleged by respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has not mentioned the house number in the complaint and has only mentioned the plot number. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner, along with accused No.1 created a fabricated sale deed, and on the basis of the said sale deed, the petitioner is claiming rights over the subject property. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 purchased Plot No.53, admeasuring 220 sq.yards in Sy.No.160 (Part), Sy.Nos.60 and 70, from Khaja Gulshan (Daulat Gulshan), Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, in the year 1992 in the name of his wife, and since then, she has been in possession of the said property. He further submitted that the petitioner, without having any manner of right, created a sale deed in collusion with accused No.1. Upon coming to know about the fabricated document, the wife of respondent No.2 submitted an application before the GHMC, Jubilee Hills on 16.01.2021, and based on the same, the Deputy Commissioner, Jubilee Hills, Circle No.18, GHMC, addressed a letter dated 21.01.2022 to the District Registrar, Hyderabad (South), Stamps and Registration Department, Erragadda, Hyderabad, and to the Joint Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, requesting cancellation of the sale deed dated 12.01.2021. At that juncture, the petitioner filed O.S.No.96 of 2022, subsequent to the lodging of the present complaint. He further submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar the investigating agency from conducting investigation. At that juncture, the petitioner filed O.S.No.96 of 2022, subsequent to the lodging of the present complaint. He further submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar the investigating agency from conducting investigation. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offences or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Hence, there are no grounds for the petitioner to seek quashment of the proceedings, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 also reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. The specific allegation of respondent No.2 in the complaint is that he had purchased the property in the name of his wife to an extent of 220 sq. yards in Plot No.53 in Sy.No.160 (Part), Sy.Nos.60 and 70, from Khaja Gulshan (Daulat Gulshan), Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, in the year 1992. The petitioner, in collusion with accused No.1, created a fabricated registered sale deed with an intention to claim rights over the subject property belonging his wife, without having any manner of right. 8. Whereas, the petitioner is claiming rights over the subject property, pursuant to the registered sale deed bearing Document No.403/21, in respect of House No.8-1-364/A/53, admeasuring 240 sq.yards, situated at Adam Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. Whether the allegations made in the complaint by respondent No.2 and the claim made by the petitioner under the registered sale deed relate to one and the same property or different properties, and whether the document relied upon by the petitioner is genuine or not, have to be revealed during the course of investigation and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 9. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.96 of 2022 on the file of the XXIV Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking declaration and recovery of possession, wherein respondent No.2 also made as party defendant No.2. 10. Upon perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the petitioner filed the above suit in the month of February, 2022, subsequent to the lodging of the present complaint by respondent No.2. 11. 10. Upon perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the petitioner filed the above suit in the month of February, 2022, subsequent to the lodging of the present complaint by respondent No.2. 11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wife of respondent No.2 alienated the property in favour of one Rizwan Begum on 06.02.2024, and by virtue of the same, respondent No.2 is not having any right to claim the subject property. 12. The aforesaid facts also have to be examined during the course of investigation, especially in view of the specific allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner, that the petitioner is trying to grab the subject property mentioned in the complaint dated 20.01.2021. 13. It is trite law that the power under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the First Information Report is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations in the FIR, prima facie, do not disclose the commission of any offence. In State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajan Lal , [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued a note of caution that such extraordinary power cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate investigation or to embark upon an inquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. In the present case, the investigation is still in progress and, therefore, this Court cannot at this stage go into the merits of the allegations made in the FIR. The petitioner is entitled to place all the documents before the investigation agency during the course of investigation. 14. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ch.Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.19 of 2021 on the file of the Toli Chowki Police Station, Hyderabad. 15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.