ORDER : Anil Kumar Jukanti, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.3 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.530 of 2022 on the file of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Maheshwaram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Mr. Shaik Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the material on record. 3. Notice was served on respondent No.2 on 12.02.2025. A memo is filed vide U.S.R.No.16122 of 2025 along with a track consignment copy of with Event Details For:RN068093694IN, and it is reflected against the caption ‘Current Status’ as ‘Item delivered’ (Addressee). None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, complainant. 4. FIR came to be registered on 16.02.2022 on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein. It is the specific case of respondent No.2 that her husband (died on 01.06.2020) was owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 gts. in Sy.No.237 and Ac.1.29 gts. in Sy.No.238/A1/1 at Madhapur Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. It is averred in the complaint that complainant’s husband and one Dappu Yadaiah approached petitioner/accused No.3 for financial help of Rs.1,05,000/- in the year 2008. That accused No.3 with 2 others took complainant’s husband and his friend to one M.Ramachandra Reddy @ Gangaram, a resident of Jubilee Hills. M.Ramachandra Reddy requested complainant’s husband and Dappu Yadaiah to execute registered AGPA as security, the parcel of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts. (0.11 gts., and 1.29 gts.). It is also stated in the complaint that once the loan amount is repaid, the AGPA should be cancelled. 6. An amount of Rs.61,000/- and Rs.44,000/- was taken by Dappu Yadaiah and complainant’s husband respectively. AGPA bearing No.10074 of 2008, dated 08.12.2008, was executed and registered on the file of Sub- Registrar, Maheshwaram. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant’s husband and accused No.3 and two others, entered into an agreement on 21.02.2009. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.46,000/- (with interest) was paid to M.Ramachandra Reddy on 27.01.2009. That this fact of receiving the amount is endorsed in the pocket note book of complainant’s husband. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant’s husband and accused No.3 and two others, entered into an agreement on 21.02.2009. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.46,000/- (with interest) was paid to M.Ramachandra Reddy on 27.01.2009. That this fact of receiving the amount is endorsed in the pocket note book of complainant’s husband. That on the very next day, Dappu Yadaiah paid an amount of Rs.89,000/- (with interest) to M.Ramachandra Reddy, but no receipt was issued. 7. It is averred in the complaint that in spite of receiving amounts, AGPA holder did not cancel the AGPA as agreed. It is further averred that one A.Nirmala, benami of M.Ramachandra Reddy, executed a registered sale deed in favour of Krishna Rao, that Krishna Rao managed the Revenue authorities and obtained pattedar passbook. It is also averred that complainant’s husband approached Tahsildar and gave detailed explanation to Tahsildar, Kandukur Mandal and that Tahsildar advised the complainant to approach the competent Court of Law. The main grievance in the complaint is that accused colluded to knock away the property of complainant and that the accused threatened her family with dire consequences if they do not enter into a settlement. Hence, the complaint. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.3 submitted that complainant’s husband and his friend needed financial help and sought help of accused No.3. That accused No.3 along with his friend took complainant and his friend to one M.Ramachandra Reddy. That M.Ramachandra Reddy offered a loan of Rs.44,000/- to complainant’s husband and a loan of Rs.61,000/- to Dappu Yadaiah on 08.12.2008. That on receiving the amounts, complainant’s husband and his friend registered an AGPA bearing document No.10074 of 2008 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Maheswaram. It is further submitted that complainant’s husband passed away on 01.06.2020. That her husband has not lodged any complaint nor filed any proceedings in a competent Court of Law till his death. 9. It is submitted that if at all, there was any collusion, coercion or misrepresentation on part of accused No.3 and others, complainant’s husband would have lodged a complaint or initiated legal proceedings against all the accused. It is further submitted that this complaint is lodged after a period of 12 years, with an intention to harass the petitioner(s). 9. It is submitted that if at all, there was any collusion, coercion or misrepresentation on part of accused No.3 and others, complainant’s husband would have lodged a complaint or initiated legal proceedings against all the accused. It is further submitted that this complaint is lodged after a period of 12 years, with an intention to harass the petitioner(s). That if the amount repaid is true, the complainant’s husband with his friend could have sought for cancellation of the document i.e., AGPA in the year 2009 itself. It is also submitted that if complainant’s husband paid the entire amount on 27.01.2009 and his friend the very next day, they could have initiated legal proceedings. It is pointed out that facts would indicate that it is a false and a frivolous case set up only to harass the petitioner(s). That, as the prices of land escalated in recent times, it is with a dubious intention, the said complaint is filed. 10. It is submitted that a charge sheet dated 02.08.2022 is filed. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded. It is further submitted that the complainant made statements contrary to those in the complaint. It is further submitted that ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 are not attracted. It is pointed out that complaint is lodged in the year 2021 after a long delay of 12 years. It is urged that when ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 are not made out in the complaint nor from the record, the continuance of legal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. It is also contended that Section 506 is also not attracted, as it is not averred that it was accused No.3 who threatened. It is also submitted that when there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner, Section 506 would not be attracted. Hence, the ingredients of the Sections charged are not attracted and the proceedings are to be quashed. 11. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that complainant has given details of accused No.3, having defrauded the complainant’s husband and that in spite of payment of amounts they did not cancel the AGPA agreement. Hence, the ingredients of the Sections charged are not attracted and the proceedings are to be quashed. 11. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that complainant has given details of accused No.3, having defrauded the complainant’s husband and that in spite of payment of amounts they did not cancel the AGPA agreement. It is further submitted that a charge sheet is filed and proceedings in C.C.No.530 of 2022 on the file of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Maheshwaram, be allowed to continue and no interference is necessitated. 12. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/accused No.3 contended that there are no specific allegations against accused No.3. That the complaint is lodged after a period of 12 years, that complainant’s husband during his lifetime has neither initiated any legal proceedings nor lodged a complaint against accused No.3. It was further contended that the allegations are baseless and mala fide in nature, only to harass the petitioner/accused No.3 without there being any evidence to constitute the offences. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph No.18 of the Apex Court’s judgment in Gorige Pentalah v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-145] , which is as follows: “(18). In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , this court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 14. As per the complaint, complainant’s husband is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey No.237 and admeasuring Ac.1.29 gts., in Survey No.238/A1/1. That complainant’s husband and his friend were in search of finances, they approached accused No.3 and his friends for help. Accused No.3 and his friends were known to complainant’s husband and Dappu Yadaiah. An amount of Rs.44,000/- was paid to complainant’s husband and Rs.61,000/- to Dappu Yadaiah by M.Ramachandra Reddy. That complainant’s husband and his friend were in search of finances, they approached accused No.3 and his friends for help. Accused No.3 and his friends were known to complainant’s husband and Dappu Yadaiah. An amount of Rs.44,000/- was paid to complainant’s husband and Rs.61,000/- to Dappu Yadaiah by M.Ramachandra Reddy. After receiving of amounts, they entered into an AGPA, registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Maheswaram vide document No.10074 of 2008 dated 08.12.2008. AGPA is said to have been entered between one M.Ramachandra Reddy and complainant’s husband and his friend (Dappu Yadaiah) for an extent of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 gts., in Sy.No.237 and Ac.1.29 gts., in Sy.No.238/A1/1 (total Ac.2.00 gts.) at Madhapur Village, schedule of property in AGPA. That another agreement was entered on 21.02.2009 between the complainant’s husband and his friend with Katravath Krishnakanth Nayak and Katravath Vijay Nayak (petitioner/accused No.3). One of the conditions of the 2009 agreement is that on repayment of amounts by complainant’s husband and Dappu Yadaiah, AGPA would be cancelled. These facts are reflected in the complaint. 15. A copy of an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession dated 08.12.2008 is annexed at Page No.50, registered as document No.10074 of 2008 in the office Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram. On perusal, it is observed that the agreement is entered between the complainant’s husband (Thalla Sathyanarayana) and one A.Nirmala. Agreement is dated 08.12.2008, for agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts., (Ac.0.11, out of Ac.1.28 gts in Survey No.237 and Ac.1.29 gts., in Survey No.238), rate per acre Rs.5,50,000/-. On perusal of the agreement, it is observed that vendor of the agreement was in need of amount of Rs.11,00,000/- and vendee paid an amount of Rs.10,99,000/- by way of cash and an amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid at the time of sale deed to vendor. There is no mention of name of complainant’s husband’s friend’s name Dappu Yadaiah in AGPA as alleged in the complaint. 16. Page No.65 is another sale deed dated 02.02.2018, between the complainant’s husband represented by his Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession holder one A.Nirmala in favour of one D.R.V. Krishna Rao, S/o. D.R. Bhooma Rao, Occ: Business, R/o. Nizamabad, registered as document No.1492 of 2018 in the office Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram. Schedule of property admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts., in Sy.No.238/A1/1. Page No.65 is another sale deed dated 02.02.2018, between the complainant’s husband represented by his Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession holder one A.Nirmala in favour of one D.R.V. Krishna Rao, S/o. D.R. Bhooma Rao, Occ: Business, R/o. Nizamabad, registered as document No.1492 of 2018 in the office Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram. Schedule of property admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts., in Sy.No.238/A1/1. From a perusal of both these documents, it is observed that only the complainant’s husband entered into the agreements for different sums. The allegations in the complaint are found not to be true as observed from both the agreements, which are registered. 17. But in the complaint, it is stated that an amount of Rs.44,000/- was offered as loan to complainant’s husband and an amount of Rs.61,000/- was offered as loan to Dappu Yadaiah. That both entered into an agreement. It is also stated in the complaint that agreement dated 08.12.2008 was entered registered as document No.10074 of 2008. 18. It is further the case that amount of Rs.46,000/- was paid on 27.01.2009 by complainant’s husband and on the very next day, an amount of Rs.89,000/- was paid by Dappu Yadaiah, to M.Ramachandra Reddy and the same was noted in the book. It defies the logic of this Court as to why both of them have not asked for cancellation of AGPA dated 08.12.2008, after they paid the entire consideration nor there were any proceedings initiated. 19. Offences charged are under Sections 406, 420 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Though it is alleged that amounts were repaid in January, 2009, no complaint has ever been lodged. It is on the basis of the complaint by respondent No.2 after 12 years, FIR No.40 of 2021 dated 16.02.2022 is registered and a charge sheet is filed. 20. The complaint is lodged after 12 years, that too after the death of complainant’s husband in the year 2020. No reasons are forthcoming for delay. No proceedings were initiated by the complainant’s husband or his friend against anyone till the registration of FIR No.40 of 2021. In the absence of any complaint or legal proceedings for 12 years, allegations in the complaint that her husband and her husband’s friend were cheated by accused No.3 and others do not hold water, as the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. 21. In the absence of any complaint or legal proceedings for 12 years, allegations in the complaint that her husband and her husband’s friend were cheated by accused No.3 and others do not hold water, as the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. 21. Learned counsel submitted that Sections 406 and 420 are not attracted, as the ingredients to constitute the offences are not made out. It was contended that the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust after 12 years indicate that complaint is frivolous and vexatious. 22. Section 420 of IPC is as follows: “ Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 23. Section 406 of IPC is as follows: “ Punishment for criminal breach of trust .—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 24. Section 506 of IPC is as follows: “ Punishment for criminal intimidation .—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 25. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , [ (2024) 10 SCC 690 ] , the Apex Court held as follows: “36. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , [ (2024) 10 SCC 690 ] , the Apex Court held as follows: “36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients: In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) (1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and (2) The person entrusted: (a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or (b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of: (i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or (ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 129] ). Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: (1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see : Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab [Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 620] ) 37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception.” … … 40. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception.” … … 40. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case. … … 43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.” 26. It is observed from the record that requests were made for cancellation of AGPA and that there was no response. No specific details are forthcoming with respect to the date, month or place of such request. It is further observed that complainant’s husband wanted to sell the property and obtained encumbrance certificates of the property. That Dappu Yadaiah was similarly cheated. There is no statement as to initiation of any proceedings by Dappu Yadaiah against the petitioner/accused No.3. 27. That on knowing accused No.4 as benami of accused No.1, the complainant’s husband approached Tahsildar and appraised the facts and the Tahsildar advised to approach the competent Court of Law. 28. No details are forthcoming either in the complaint or from the record as to what transpired between the period from 2009 till 2020. Nowhere in the record, it is reflected about initiation of any proceedings (civil/criminal) arising out of the transactions. Complainant’s husband died in the year 2020 (as stated in Ground (b)). 28. No details are forthcoming either in the complaint or from the record as to what transpired between the period from 2009 till 2020. Nowhere in the record, it is reflected about initiation of any proceedings (civil/criminal) arising out of the transactions. Complainant’s husband died in the year 2020 (as stated in Ground (b)). Neither the complainant’s husband nor Dappu Yadaiah lodged any complaints nor initiated any proceedings. It is only on 06.02.2021, the complainant, wife of Thalla Satyanarayana, aged about 75 years has lodged this complaint. In the absence of any complaints or proceedings initiated, the allegations in the complaint appear to be motivated without any basis. 29. It is not the case of the complainant that petitioner/accused No.3 tried to deceive by making a false or misleading representation nor it is the case that any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property was made at inception. It is alleged after 12 years that the accused Nos.1 to 6 colluded to cheat her husband. Nowhere it is denied that her husband did not receive the amount of Rs.44,000/-. In fact, it is reflected in the record that her husband along with his friend received amounts from accused No.1 and not from petitioner/accused No.3. 30. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 entered into agreement with complainant’s husband and Dappu Yadaiah that AGPA would be cancelled on payment of money. In the absence of initiation of any proceedings or complaint against accused No.3 after the alleged repayment of amounts in 2009, the allegations cannot stand the test of time. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has offered no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than 12 years. Absence of explanation can only prompt the Court to infer a mala fide motive for initiation of criminal proceedings. On an overall consideration of the facts borne by record, it is apparent that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 of IPC are not made out for attracting the offences, as alleged. No offences are made out against petitioner/accused No.3. 31. Though there is no allegation in the complaint that on 28.11.2020 at 09:30 hours, accused No.3 was present when the complainant was threatened, in the charge sheet, it is reflected that accused Nos.1 to 6 threatened the complainant. This fact needs to be proved whether there was such intimidation is made out or not. 31. Though there is no allegation in the complaint that on 28.11.2020 at 09:30 hours, accused No.3 was present when the complainant was threatened, in the charge sheet, it is reflected that accused Nos.1 to 6 threatened the complainant. This fact needs to be proved whether there was such intimidation is made out or not. This Court cannot ascertain such a fact at this stage. 32. The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are not made out and the offences do not get attracted, the said Sections are liable to be quashed right from the stage of FIR and hence, are quashed. 33. C.C.No.530 of 2022 is pending on the file of XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Maheshwaram under Sections 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Sections 406 and 420 of IPC as held are not made out and the offences for Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed qua petitioner/accused No.3. The XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Maheshwaram shall proceed in C.C.No.530 of 2022 for the remaining offences under Sections. 34. Appearance of petitioner/accused No.3 before the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Maheshwaram in C.C.No.530 of 2022 in the proceedings for the remaining offences can be dispensed with and is dispensed with the following conditions. 35. Petitioner/accused No.3 shall file an affidavit before the trial Court that he will not dispute his identity and that proceedings can go on in his absence to be conducted by his counsel. Petitioner shall not dispute the proceedings conducted in his absence. It is made clear that petitioner shall present himself before the trail Court when called for or if his presence is required. This order shall stand vacated automatically, if petitioner fails to attend the proceedings as and when called for. It is further made clear that counsel on record for petitioner/accused No.3 in the trial Court shall be present on every date of the case. Any observations made in this order shall not influence the Court below while considering or concluding the case at the time of trial. 36. For reasons aforesaid, Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.