CRLP/5008/2024 of K. Vikram, Vs The State of Telangana on 20 February 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.714 of 2023 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 406,42O,468,471 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')

02. Heard Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petrtioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as \ I I \ \

SriP Soma Shekar Reddy, learned counsel fo. the unofficial respondent perused the record

03. The brief facts of the case are that .l e petitioner_ accused is claiming to have paid Rs 14,4S,OOOI :n the basis of forged agreement dated 24.01 2020 and clar ring that the respondent No.2 have purportedly agreed to grrr. away 3Oo/o of his land in ptot No 430 Sy No 33, 34p 35p 3(i 37 38 and 39 of Guttalabegumpet. The respondent No ,l had never executed the purported agreement and the < omprainant stated that the signatures appearing in the purported agreement are not of the respondent No.2 anr have not been subscribed by him The respondent No.2 rt rt received any amount as mentioned in the above purported : greement. It is found that the said document is photoset r: rpy of the purported agreement and the said document is no: :rinted on a non-judicial stamp paper and only revenue stamp of Rs.100 paisa is affixed at the bottom showing eceipt of Rs.14,45,000/-. The petitioner-accused forl ed and conspiring with two witr esses to fabricated document and tllegally grab the rightful property under his posses sion and ownership and they have also committed illegal acts to knock away the property and to cause wrongful loss to the respondent No.2 and wrongful gain to themselves and also caused mental agony Hence, he requested to take action against the petitioner-accused for the above alleged offences. 04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences lt is contended that there are property disputes between the parties and all the allegations are of civil in nature. The petitioner. the respondent No.2 and one Srikanth Morlawar are partners in real estate business since 2018. The said Srikanth [Vlorlawar came out of the partnership business and a settlement between the parties happened and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 01 .10.2021 is executed dividing the properties among them, wherein there was a condition that the property under dispute to an extent o'f 3Ooh share will be executed as a sale deed in favour of the petitioner as per agreement dated 24.01 .2020 but the respondent No.2 failed to execute the sale deed in \ : I I l, \ i I I ! I

!

-'t favour of the petitioner-accused, for which, on 20.04.2023 the petitioner-accused had filed O.S.No.222 of . t023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Crvil Jurge-cum-Vlll Additional lVletropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Red: y Distrrct at Kukatpally seeking specific performance of th= agreement dated 24.01 2020. The said agreement was inc emnified by paying amount of Rs.1,20,000/- under Secticr 33 of the lndian Stamps Act On 24062023 the prese:r rt complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 but on the srr ne day, the petitioner-accused had also filed a complaint b rt the same was refused by the Police. lt is submitted thet there is no evidence on record to substantiate the allegari>ns levelled against the petitloner-accused. Even if the al r,gations are taken at their face value and accepted in their e ntirety, they do not constitute any offence. The contents of tr -. complaint, read as a whole, do not disclose the essenti:r ingredients necessary to attract the alleged offences. 04(b). With the above submissions, whi r praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused, he relied upon a decision of the Hon I le Supreme i I EI t t I Ii I I i I I I t i i \ l i i I I I t I I i I I i ; !

: I

, I i { I I I I ! I I Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and othersl wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.12,22and 23that: "12. Appellants 1 to 3 filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2735 of 2017 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No. l- 194/2016. Yogeshbhai who is the accused in the criminal case being CC No 367 of 2016 also filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No 24588 of 2017 for quashing of cheque case filed against him under Sectlon 138 of the Nl Act. Yogeshbhai claimed that he has given the cheques to Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai who approached him requesting for help to purchase land. Yogeshbhai alleged that the appellants have forged the receipts lssued by Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar. ln this regard, Yogeshbhai placed reliance upon the report of the handwriting expeft, Directorate of Forensic Sclence dated 1 5-12-201 6 as per which, the disputed signatures of Mahendrakumar Javaharbhai on the receipts were not written by him i.e. Respondent 2 Mahendrakumar Javaharbhai.

22. The High Court, in our view, erred in quashing the criminal case in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed by Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai under Section 138 of the Nl Act. As pointed out earlier, Yogeshbhai has admitted the rssuance of cheques. When once the issuance of cheque is admifted/established, the presumption I I II ' lzozo; s scc z9l would arise under Section 139 of the Nl Act in ,i vour of the holder of cheque that is the compla nant Appellant 3. The nature of presumptions t tder Secllon 139 of the Nl Act and Section 118(a) :, the Evidence Act are rebuttabte. yogeshbhai ha; of course, raised the defence that there is no l= lalty enforceable debt and he issued the cheques t<t \elp Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai for purchase of lands. The burden /les upon the accused to rebul the presumption by adducing evidence. The High ( outt did not keep in view that until the accused drscha ges his burden, the presumption under Section 1 3g t the Nl Act will continue to remain. lt is for yogeshb,t ti to adduce evidence to rebut the statutory presumt ion. When disputed queslions of facts are involved n ich need to be adjudicated after the padies act< uce evidence, the complaint under Section 13g of tn t Nl Act ought not to have been quashed by the t ligh Court by taking recourse io Seclion 482 (), DC. Though. the Court has the power to quast the crimind complaint filed under Section 139 of u Nt Act on the /egal issues like limitation, etc. crit inal complaint filed under Section 13g of the Nt Act against Yogeshbhai ought not to have been quasrcd merely on the ground that there are inter se drslrr les between Appellant 3 and Respondent 2. Wi,l out keeping in view the statutory presumption rztt;ed under Section 139 of the Nl Act, the High Court, itt cur view, committed a serious error in quashing the criminal complaint in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed ur jer Section 138 of the Nl Act. -t

23. ln the result, the impugned order is set aside and these appeals are allowed. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2735 of 2017 filed by the appeltants is allowed and FIR No. l-194/2016 is quashed Crimind Miscellaneous Application No. 24588 of 201 7 fited by Yogeshbhai Muljibhai Patel stands drsmAsed. Case filed by Appellant 3 Hasmukhbhai Ravjibha Patel under Section 138 of the Nl Act - CC No. 367 of 2016 stands restored. The Sth Additional Civit Judge & JMFC, Bharuch is directed to proceed with the case in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed under Section 138 of the Nl Act and afford sufficient oppodunity to both the pafties and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Summary Sull No. 105 of 201 5 shall be proceeded in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the views expressed by the High Court in the impugned order.' 04(c). Further, he relied upon a decision in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. Stafe of Uttarakhand and othersz wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos '12 and 13 that "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any coud or othervvise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint dlsc/oses a criminal offence or not '? lzor ay r r scc ozs I I depends upon the nature of facts alteged the -ein. Whether essentlai ingredients of criminal offenr< are present or not has to be judged by the High Cct.t. A complatnt disclosing civil transactions may also ,ave a criminal texture But the High Coud mus. see whether a dispute whrch ls essenfia//y of a civil r r ture is given a cloak of cnminal offence. ln st,r t a situation. if a civil remedy is availabte and is, ir act, adopted as has happened in this case, the High a cud should not hesitate to quash the criminal procee. ngs to prevent abuse of process of the courl.

13. As we have atready noted, here fhe dlspu, : rs essentially about the profit of the hotet busines:; znd its owtership. The pending civit suit will take ct r l of all those rssues. fhe allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellan, :an also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondert 2's attempt to file similar comptaint against the appetant having fatled. he has filed the present complai rhe appellant has been acquitted in another case fittt by Respondertt 2 against him a eging offence L t der Sectrbn 406 IPC Possession of the shop in ques ion has a/so been handed over by the appellart to Respondent 2. ln such a situation, in our opi.t on, continuation of the pending ciminat proceedt tgs would be abuse of the process of law. The High C tutt was wrong in holding otherwise." 04(d). Further, he relied upon a decision irr the case of D.P.Gulati, Manager Accounts Jetking lnfotr;in Limited

v. Sfafe of Uttar Pradesh and anothef wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.4 and 9 that "4. lt is stated that after the above complaint was fited, Respondent 2, as a counterblast, filed allegedly frivolous Criminal Complaint Case No 1446 ol 2013, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420. 467, 468, 471 and 406 lPC, before the Additionat Chief Judicial Magistrate 4, Meerut, against the appellant and other Directors of the appe ant's Company lt is furlher pteaded that filing of the complaint in question, subsequent to the complaint filed by the appellant, is nothing but harassment and abuse of process of /aw on the paft of Respondent 2. As such, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (for shorl "the Code") before the Allahabad High Cout for quashment of the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 4, Meerut, which was dlsmrssed by the said Coutt. Hence this appeal through special leave.

9. ln view of the above position of law, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, and after going through the criminal complaint filed against Respondent 2 and thereafter, one filed by him against the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law on the paft of Respondent 2." '1zots; r't scc zso I E I! i II : ; i i I :

'10 04(e) Further, he relied upon a decision r the case of Anukul Singh v. Sfate of lJttar Pradesh zr,td another4 wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos 2. 16 and t.1 that "2 This Crimind Appeal is drected against the judgmenl and order dated 22 10.2019 passed ty High Court of Judicature at Atlahabad in Apptit i No. 3856 of 2004, whereby the High Courl dism;: the appellant's application fitecl under Section 4t the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 seeking qua; of the charge sheef as well as the consequt proceedings arising out of Crime No. 47 of .l registered at Police Station Eilari, Distict Morada, for offences punrshable under Sections 420.467 468 of the Penal Code, 1860

16. Despite this background, the potice proceed: file a charge sheet dated 16.04 2003 agains. appellant for offences under sections 420, 461 468 lPC. Even if the allegations are assumed rc true, they unmistakably arise out ol commercial/contractual transaction retating to t and repayment, which has been given a critr, colour. The case fhus falls squarely within categ)

(1) and (7) of Bhalan Lat. namely, where allegations do not disclose the commission of offence, and where the proceedings are malictot instituted with an ulterior motive. Continuation of ; prosecution would amount to an abuse of proces. 'inal the tiort sed ?of ting tial t03, 'ad, znd tto the tnd be a )an nal 'ies the an sly rch of 4 2025 SCC Online SC 2060

p law and consequently, warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 21 The High Coutt, in refusing to quash the proceedings misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal, and the subsequenl authonties referred to above, which uniformly hold that the machinery of criminal law cartnot be permitted to be misused for settling civil dlspuies or to wreak vengeance. 22 Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2019 of the High Courl is sef asrde FIR No 47 of 2003 dated 05.02.2003 and the consequential charge sheet dated 16.04.2003, pending before the trial Courl. are hereby quashed. This judgment, however, shall not preclude the padies from pursuing civil remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law." 05 On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that there are triable rssues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full-fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition \

- -ir

I

06. Having heard the submissions r ade by the learned counsel on either side and upon F( rusal of the material available on record, it is evident that he petitioner and the respondent No 2, along with another rrr rvidual, were partners in a real estate business since 2O.l { lt is also borne out from the record that a Merr trandum of Understanding dated 01 .1O.ZOZ| was executerl between the parties settling certain property issues The pre sent dispute appears to have arisen out of business transac.i :ns between the said partners lt is further not in dispute that a civil suit in O.S.No222 of 2023, seeking specific perforrrance of the agreement daled 24 01 2O2O, is already pendir l before the competent Civil Court

07. lt is an admitted fact that on 24 )6.2023 the present complarnt was lodged by the respondr: rt No.2 and that the petitioner-accused had also filed a com: aint against the respondent No 2 on the very same day, u hich, prima facie, appears to be in the nature of a counterblar t to the civil proceedings initiated between the parties.

'13 08 ln view of the above facts and circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is whether the allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting continuation of criminal proceedings, or whether the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, thereby requiring interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 09 On a careful consideration of the complaint, the material on record, and the rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, the respondent No.2 and another person were partners in a real estate business since 2018 The existence of prior commercial dealings between the parties clearly indicates a business relationship rather than a purely criminal transaction. lt is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already instituted O.S.No.222 of 2023 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 24.O1 .2020 The Civil Court is competent to examine all relevant aspects, including the genuineness of the agreement, its execution, passing of consideration, and the respective rights of the parties in the subject property Thus, the core dispute -l between the parties is essentially contractual : rd property- related

10. The primary allegation in the compl;r rt is that the agreement daled 24.01 2020 rs a forged dcrlment. The determination of the authenticrty of signatures >xecution of the document, and payment of consideration ar: all matters which requrre appreciation of evidence and, i necessary, expert opinion. These rssues are already the sL bject matter of adjudication in the pending civil proceedings Further, the present complaint appears to have been I rdged after initiation of civil proceedings Criminal proceec ngs arising out of property and business disputes, partr: rlarly when initiated subsequent to civil litigation, often ndicate an attempt to exert pressure rn civil disputes 11 ln the present case on hand, the cor tplaint does not clearly disclose the existence of dishonest ir ention from the inception of the transaction, which is : I essential ingredient for constituting offences such as c:l eating and forgery lt is well settled that where the dispute I essentially ?

contractual or commercial in nature and civil remedies have already been invoked, initiation of criminal proceedings may amount to abuse of the process of law. Criminal law cannot be permrtted to be used as an instrument for setfling civil disputes. Further, the entire dispute admittedly emanates from a contractual transaction relating to immovable property, which is already the sublect matter of a pending civil suit before the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the present crimrnal proceedings appear to be an attempt to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. Consequenfly, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law and is, therefore, liable to be quashed 12 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused in FIR No.714 of 2023 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, are hereby quashed. t I I \

any, shall stand closed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous ir rplications, if IS-,o* oFFrcER SD/ P.PONNA KRISHNA ASI; STANT REGISTRAR To //TRUE COPY//

1. The X Additional lv'letropolitan [t/agistrate, Cyberabad al (ukatpally

2. The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Statron, C I erabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the str e of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Advocate [OI']JC]

5. Two CD Copies yrtrl'Sl I

! tt ''"

ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION v lu HIGH COURT DATED: 2010212026

ORDER

CRLP.No.5008 of 2024 OR THE S

1 6 iI/.fr ?W z

* l (t\ * I I I I i i i, I I I t I t t I I I I I I t