Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1462 (TS)

Akula Sudharani v. State of Telangana

2025-11-12

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. The case of petitioners – Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No. 698 of 2023 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. is that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 02.02.2023 alleging that petitioner No.1 and her husband Srinivasa Rao (petitioner No.2) and daughter Likitha with an intention to grab the property of their mother, obtained the certificate from the office of the MRO, Alwal misrepresenting that she is the only daughter to her parents and basing on the false documents, executed a registered Gift Deed on the name of Akula Likitha (daughter of petitioners). On coming to know of the same, the 2 nd respondent on 10-11-2022, when asked petitioners, they threatened to do whatsoever she likes. Basing on the said complaint, it is stated, police registered FIR No. 79 of 2023. 1.1. According to petitioners, they are wife and husband and they have been falsely implicated by the 2 nd respondent by converting the civil issue into criminal. The 2 nd respondent also filed OS No.245 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malkajgiri for partition of the property left by their mother and the same is pending. It is stated, the parents of the 1st petitioner during her life time had given shares of the 2 nd respondent and another sister viz. Sunitha. Later the 2 nd respondent and another sister Sunitha ignored their parents and at that juncture, petitioner No.1 looked after the welfare of her parents, as such a Will Deed was executed in her favour. Family Members Certificate dated 07-01-2020 was obtained from the office of the MRO by their mother and further, it is registered after the death of the father of the petitioner in so far as the Family Members Certificate is concerned. Therefore, no accusation can be attributed as against petitioners knowing fully-well that petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence. 1.2. In the instant case, it is stated, petitioners had no dishonest intention, hence Section 420 IPC does not attract. In so far as Section 504 IPC is concerned, the 2 nd respondent created a false story to suit the said offence. 1.2. In the instant case, it is stated, petitioners had no dishonest intention, hence Section 420 IPC does not attract. In so far as Section 504 IPC is concerned, the 2 nd respondent created a false story to suit the said offence. As per the contents of the complaint, the dispute is purely civil in nature and the 2nd respondent with a mala fide intention to harass petitioners converted the civil issue into criminal. There is no prima-facie case made out to connect petitioners into this false case, therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law, hence liable to be quashed. 1.3. It is also stated, previously petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.2569 of 2023 to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.79 of 2023 on the file of the Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, R.R.District, and this Court disposed of the said Petition on the ground that transactions appeared to be between family members, Investigating Officer should conclude the investigation in FIR No.79 of 2023 on the file of Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad without taking any coercive steps against petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 and petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officers, as and when required for the purpose of investigation. It is further stated, Criminal Petition No.7294 of 2023 filed by Accused No.3 in the subject case was allowed on 23.04.2024 quashing the proceedings against her. Hence, the Criminal Petition. 2. By order dated 15.04.2025, all further proceedings in C.C.No. 698 of 2023 pending on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal District are stayed against petitioners – Accused 1 and 2. 3. The 2 nd respondent filed counter stating that Petitioners fraudulently procured a legal heir certificate, identifying Petitioner No. 1 as the sole daughter of their deceased parents, and subsequently used this illegitimate document to execute a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of her own daughter, thereby dispossessing Respondent No. 2 and her sister of their rightful inheritance. Under the guise of this fraudulent certificate, Petitioner No.1 executed a Gift Settlement deed vide Document No.5123 of 2022 in favour of her daughter, Akula Likitha. When confronted, petitioners used abusive language which conduct not only demonstrates their contempt for lawful proceedings but also underscores the deliberate and malicious nature of their fraudulent acts. 3.1. Under the guise of this fraudulent certificate, Petitioner No.1 executed a Gift Settlement deed vide Document No.5123 of 2022 in favour of her daughter, Akula Likitha. When confronted, petitioners used abusive language which conduct not only demonstrates their contempt for lawful proceedings but also underscores the deliberate and malicious nature of their fraudulent acts. 3.1. It is stated further that Petitioners' claim that their deceased mother personally obtained the family member certificate is demonstrably false; evidence suggests the mother's signatures were procured under coercion and this is further substantiated by the stark contradiction between the alleged Will executed on 01.02.2021, which explicitly acknowledges three daughters, and the alleged affidavit, which inexplicably names only Petitioner No.1. This discrepancy irrefutably indicates that both the affidavit and the family member certificate were obtained through fabricated documents and deceitful means. 3.2. In Criminal Petition No. 7294 of 2023 filed by Accused No.3 who is none other than the daughter of petitioners herein, this Court, in the order unequivocally established that Petitioner No. 1 deliberately suppressed material facts by failing to disclose that her mother had three daughters when obtaining the family member certificate. The sole rationale for quashing the proceedings against Accused No. 3 was her status as a minor-a 17-year-old at the time the illegal family member certificate was procured thus precluding any finding of her involvement in its fraudulent acquisition. 3.3. It is also stated, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against an accused cannot be quashed merely because the allegations may also disclose a civil dispute between the parties. The mere fact that the allegations also make out existence of civil dispute would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the allegations and material makes out the criminal intention of the case. In this petition, the disputed facts and questions necessitate a thorough examination and resolution through a full trial, hence, it would be inappropriate to prematurely foreclose the opportunity for a just and complete determination of the facts. Thus, the present matter cannot be quashed invoking the inherent power of this Hon'ble High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 4. In this petition, the disputed facts and questions necessitate a thorough examination and resolution through a full trial, hence, it would be inappropriate to prematurely foreclose the opportunity for a just and complete determination of the facts. Thus, the present matter cannot be quashed invoking the inherent power of this Hon'ble High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 4. Smt. P. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for petitioners relies on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka , [2025 Law suit (SC) 1041] and Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal , (2023) 15 SCC 135 and contends that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture, but if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted, High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. 5. Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. In this regard, he relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand ,2024 SCC Online SC 685 and Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar (Crl.Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 480 of 2025). 6. The main ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. are deception, dishonest inducement, and delivery of property or consent to retain property. A perusal of the FIR discloses prima facie allegation of dishonest intention on the part of petitioners in getting the property registered in favour of their daughter by making false representation that petitioner No.1 is the sole daughter to her parents. This allegation prima facie attracts the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. Here, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. , (2025) 2 SCC 604 , wherein it was held that ‘it is well-settled that when considering an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot conduct a mini trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language’. It is also to be seen the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has consistently held that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. 7. In view of the settled legal position, this Court at this stage, is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. The Criminal Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 9. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.