CRLP/13763/2024 of Prathipati Swathi Vs State of Telangana on 16 December 2025

1. Prathipati Swathi, D/o Prathipati Pulla Rao, Age: 35 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Plot No 39'1 E-1 11, Road No.B1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

2. Prathipati Sharath, S/o Pulla Rao, Age:30 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o PIot No.39'1E-1 11, Road NoBl Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 AND

1. State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Telangana

2. K. Ashok Kumar, S/o Ramulu, Age:43 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.01- 7612511120 and 21 Beside Dlvlart Line, Vaishnoi Enclave, Petbasheerbagh, Qutbullapur ' ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.185 of 2024 Uls 420,504, rlw 34 IPC on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-J ud icial Magistrate of First C{ass, lrledak. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.No.185 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, Pending disposal of the Crimihal Petition.

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the N4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to take any coerce steps against the petitioners in C.C.No.18512024 on the file Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

Between: K. Ashok Kumar, S/o Ramulu, Age 76/2511120 and 21 Beside Dt\/art Qutbullapur

AND

Criminal Petitio nNo.13735 ot 2024 : 43 years, Occ: Busir ess. Ryo H.No.01_ Line, Vaishnoi Enclavt, petbasheerbagh, ...Petitioner/Respo n lent No.2 in CRLp Prathipati Swathi, D/o prathipati pulla Rao, Age: 35 yea-r , Occ: Doctor, R/o. Plot No 39'1 E-11'1, Road No.B1, Jubitee Hills, tiyderabad. Prathipati Sharath, S/o pulla Rao, Age:30 years, Occ. lusiness, R/o plot No.391E-1 11, Road No8.t Jubilee Hi[s, Hyde;abad. stare or rera nsa na, n"p,","ntl5'3ii,1"lflt,,lt[i:::1, Iff 'rLfr ,:j[T Telangana ...Respondents/Rer; rondents in CRLp Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.Ct52g of BNSS : .aying that in the circumstances stated in the [\,4emorandum of Grounds of cri ninrr"plt,tion, ir," High court may be preased to vacate the rnterim order datedl l-r r-zoz+ passeo in l.A. No: 2 of 2024 in CRLp.No.13763 of 2024. This Petition ccming on for hearing, upon perusing ti r Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petitLn and upon r."ii'"g t[" argume..s of r\,4 r. Avinash Desai, Senior counser representrng r\/r. vimai vJrma vaiiredcl , Advocate forihe Petitioners and the Ir,4 r. r\1. Ramachandra Reddy, Additionar p, ,ti" pros""rtor-on behalf of the Responrient No.1 and of f\,4r. p. ia;a Sripatni n;,, S".i"iC"r.*f representing [Vlr. Ramavaram chandrashekai Reddy, r\ lvocate t*- tn" Respondent No.2.

Between: Bogavarapu Ankamma Rao, go Veeraiah, Age: 52 years, r cc: Business, R:/o Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, A-"nd hra pradesh. AND ...Accusr d No.3/petitioner l State of rerangana, Represented by its pubric prosec, or, High court of Telangana

2. K. Ashok Kumar, S/o Rqm{u, Age; 43 years, Occ: Busirr:ss, F/o H.No.01_ 7612511r20 and 21 Beside Dlvrart Line, Vaishnoi Encraver, p;tba;he;rba;h, Qutbullapur ...Respondents Petition under section 528 0f BNSS praying that in :r e circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar iretition, th< High cou,t may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.18s of 2024 ut , qio,soi, iti zq IPC on.the fite of principat Junior bivil Judge_ Cum_ Judiciat r, agLtrite'oi iiist Class, Medak.

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C. C. No. 18512024 on the file of Principal Junior civil Judge- cum- Judicial tvlagistrate of First Class, Medak, Pending disposal of the Criminal petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances be pleased to direct the respondent not to take any coerce steps against the petitioner in C.C.No.18512024 on the file Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Medak, pending disposal of the Criminal Petitron. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: K. Ashok Kumar, S/o Ramulu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.01- 7612511120 and 21 Beside DMart Line, Vaishnoi Enclave, Petbasheerbagh, Qutbullapur ...RespondenURespondent AND

1. State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Telangana ...Respondent

2. Bogavarapu Ankamma Rao, S/o Veeraiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, Andhra Prhdesh. ...RespondenUPetitioner Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances be pleased to vacate stay and dismiss the above Criminal Petition no. 13735 of 2024 daled 13-11-2024 as it is devoid of merits. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Appasani Ram Dheeraj, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Mr. L. Preetham Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Criminal Petition No.13740 of 2024 Between:

1. Vegesina Nagasurendra, S/o Srinivas Raju, Age: 33 years, Occ: Employee in Prathipati Estate, Rl/o. H.No1-98, Alluri Sitaramaraju Street, Kodurapadu, Mallavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Prathipati Shiva Shankar, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Plot No391E-1 1 1, Road No81 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners

AND

Represented by its Public Pros: ;utor. High court ot State of Telangana, Telangana.

2. K. Ashok Kumar, S/o Ramulu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Btr iness, Rl/o H.No.0'1- 7612511120 & 21 Beside DMart Line, Vaishnoi Enclil e, Petbasheerbagh, Qutbullapu r. ... Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the crrcumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition .he High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.18512024 Jls 420,5O4, rlw 34 IPC on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Jud iciit Magistrate of First Class, lrledak.

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the clrcumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition .he High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings including appearance r f the Petitioners in C.C.No.1B5/2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial lt/lagistrate of First Class, [\4edak, pending disposal of the Crir inal Petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition .he High Court may be pleased to dired the respondent not to take any coert ) steps against the petitioners in C.C.No.1B5 o'f 2024 on the file Principal Juni: " Civil Judge- Cum- Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Medak, pending dispr);al of the Criminal Petition.

Between: K. Ashok Kumar, S/o Ramulu, Age: 43 years, Occ: Bus ness, Rt/o H.No.01- 7612511120 & 21 Beside DMart Line, Vaishnoi Enclar:, Petbasheerbagh, Qutbullapur. ...Petitioner/Resp,) rdent No.2 in CRLP AND

Vegesina Nagasurendra, S/o Srinivas Raju, Age: 33 ye r s, Occ: Employee in Prathipati Estate, R/o. H.No1-98, Alluri Sitaramaraju Street, Kodurapadu, Mallavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Prarl, ,sh. Prathipati Shiva Shankar, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Age: 39 y;ars, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Plot No391E-1 1 1, Road No81 Jubilee Hills, Hydera I rd. ...Respondents/Petitionr: Nos.1 & 2 in CRLP

3. State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosec r tor, Through S.H.O. P.S. Manoharabad, High court of Telangana. ...Respondents/Re ;pondents in CRLP

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C|S2B of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Order dated: 1 3/1 1/2024 passed in l.A. No: 2 of 2024 in C.R.L.P No: 13740 of 2024. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of trilr. Avinash Desai, Senior Counsel representing tt/r. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. lvl. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Mr. P. Raja Sripathi Rao, Senior Counsel representing Mr. Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE- qNGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWAD SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13763 13735 and 137 {O of 2024 16TH DEcEMBER,2025 Between: Prathipati Swathi and four others AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another R:spondents

: COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under iection 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'Bl{SS') (pi-eviously Section 482 of Ci'.P C.) by the petitioners-r,, cused Nos.1 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings against them ir C.C.No.185 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal Jur or Civil Judge- cum-Judicial [Vlagistrate of First Class at Medak, rerr istered for the offences under Sections 420 and 504 rlw.34 of the lni an penal Code (for short'lPC') Since all the three criminal petitions are, apisi6g or1 ot C.C.No.'185 of 2024, they are heard together and dis: >sed of by way of this common order. Heard N4r. Avinash Desai, learned {i lnior Counsel )etitioners representing Mr. Virnal Varma Vasireddy, learned < cunsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.13763 and 13740 of 2024 and tVlr. Appasani Ram Dheeraj, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.p.No.13735 of 2024, Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, Iearned Senior Counsel representing lt/lr. Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy, . learned counsel for respondent No.2-de faclo complainant in Crl.P.Nos.13763 and 13740 of 2024 and [/r. L.Preetham Reddy, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant in Crl.P.No.13735 of 2024, and [Vlr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.'1 -State. The facts of the case 4.1 . The de faclo complainant is engaged in real estate business and is the Managing Partner of Ira lnfrastructure and Developers Company 4.2. The de facfo complainant, petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 and [//s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited and 15 others are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.52.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.209, 210, 211, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237 , 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242 and 243 of Kallakal Village, Manoharabad tvlandal, Medak District. They have jointly obtained permission from HMDA and developed a layout in the name of 'Green Hub'.

4.3. Thereafter, a Partition Deed bearing docLr 2022, dated 12.12.2022 was entered into by the '19 pa M/s. Prathipati Estatqs Private Limited represented I signatory petitioner-accused No.4, M/s. yellow Stone Limited represented by its authorized signatory pr: No.5 and petitioner-accused No.3, were allotted .17,7€ in Plot Nos.'1 , 83, 84, 85 and 104 in Sy.Nos.209/F, 231 I p, 233t p, 234 tp, 235 tp, 236t p, 237 tp, 238/p, 239 t I 2421P and 243lP situated at Kallakal Village, l/lanohr Medak District. The petitioners-accused Nos.i and 2 a of I\4/s. Yellow Stone Estates private Limited anci Estates Private Limited respectively and the petitionerr; and 5 are their representatives.

4.4. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 agreed t: share of 17,765 square yards to the de faclo complil consideratron of Rs.19,49,00,0001. Accordingly, complainant's Company has entered into a [/€ Understanding, dated 08.02.2023 with M/s. prathipati Limited represented by its authorized signatory pet No.4, M/s. Yellow Stone Estates private Limited re6rt authorized signatory petitioner-accused No.5 and pet tent No.672 of tners, in which, t its authorized Fstates Private . itioner-accused 5 square yards 210tP,211tP, ,240tP,241tP, rabad Mandal, e the Directors V/s Prathipati accused Nos.4 sell their entire rant for a sale he de facto morandum of istates Private ' tioner-accused -'sented by its tioner-accused

rt

No.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'First Party'), for the said extent, in the presence of elders 4.5. As per the terms of the lt/lOU, upon payment of the amount in five tranches, within (60) days, with a grace period of (15) days from the date of MOU, the plots of equal value shall be registered in favour of the de facfo complainant. Additionally, it was also confirmed that amount of Rs.1 9,49,00,000/- was excluded from the amounts to be paid with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.02.15 gts. in Sy.No.255 of Kallakal Village, l/anoharabad lr4andal, Medak District. lt was further agreed by the First Party that the said land should be surveyed by a Government Surveyor and physical possession shall be handed over to the de facto complainant in the presence of adjacent land owners in order to avoid future disputes on the 75th day of the MOU.

4.6. ln accordance with the terms of the tt/OU, the de facto complainant paid Rs.15,00,00,000/- in four tranches and got registered the plots of equal value. The timelines in the MOU were extended by both the parties and based on the revised timelines the entire transaction must be concluded on or before 21-08.2023. 4.7 . When the de facto complainant arranged the amount for the fifth tranche, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 and accused No.6

produced a two yeai old land map pertaining to r,c.02.15 gts. in Sy.No.255 on the 75th day and forced the de facto cor rplainant to buy' the said land, according to that outdated map. Wll rn the de faclo complainant insrsted on adherence to the terms o1 the IMOU, the accused, in violation of the agreed terms, refusec to conduct the survey and forced the de facto complainant to purch;l ;e the said land according to their convenience.

4.8. Subsequently, the de faclo complainant ca r the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 and accused No original owners of Ac.02.'15 guntas in Sy.No.255 of and that they had crirninally trespassed into adjacenr boundaries, and erected new boundaries with an inter that land rnto their land. As such, the original owner{i lodged a complaint against the accused, leading rc Crime No.179 of 2023 of tr/lanoharabad Police Statiorr punishable under Sections 447,427 and 504 rlw.34 cf re to know that 6 were not the (allakal Village, and, altered the :ion of including cf the said land registration of br the offences IPC.

4.9. Furthermore, five plots bearing Nos.'l ,83 31, 85, and 104, which were to be registered in favour of the de fac&r complainant as per the terms of the MOU, were registered in the r; me of accused No.6 and another. When the de facto complainant questioned the petitioners about the same and asked them to register he said plots in ,, '1

his name, they demanded an additional amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- By doing so, the petitioners committed criminal breach of trust and cheated lhe de facto complainant without registering the plots and land in accordance with the agreed terms under the MOU Followin are the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners: 5.1 . The petitioners-accused Nos. l and 2 are the Directors of the Companies i.e., M/s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited and l\ills. Prathipati Estates Private Limited resppctively. The petitioner- accused No.3 owns a share of land sought to be sold to the de facfo complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the authorized signatories of the Companies i.e., M/s. Prathipati Estates Private Limited and [Vl/s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited respectively The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are the family members 5.2. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They are in no way concerned with the offences alleged. Clauses (5) and (6) of the MOU clearly stipulate that the de facto complainant shall make a payment of Rs.19,49,00,0001 to the petitioners within (60) days with a grace period of (15) days. lt further stipulates that, in the event lhe de facto complainant fails to make -,,"

payment within the agreed period of (75) days, the ,etitioners shall have the absolute right to hold and sell the plots tc hird parties, to which the de facto complainant agreed. Even as per tl- : complaint the de facto complainant had paid Rs. 15 crores in fo I tranches and obtained registration of plots equivalent to the said arn: lnt 5 3 As per Clause (5) of the IVOU, it is eviden Plot No.1 by the petitioners to the de facto complainant purchasing 4c.2.15 gts. in Sy.No255 and upon tf( conducted by the petitioners. Clause (4) of the ti/OtJ that the survey pertains only to the land admeasurin l Sy.No.255, ancl not to any other extent.' ln complianc clauses, the petitioners have performed their part of conducting the survey through a private surveyor ar( land in the presence of representatives of lhe de fact Company. Despite this, the de facto complainant's C,) purchase the said land. Therefore, as per Clause (5) c petitioners are under no obligation to sell Plot No.1 com plainant. hat the sale of s subject to his survey to be makes it clear Ac.2 15 gts. in : with the said he contract by measured the rcomplainant's npany failed to f the MOU, the o the de facto

5.4. Alleging non-compliance of the terms of MO J, the de facto complainant filed O.S.No.34 of 2023 before the Cr> rrt of principal District and Sessions Judge at Medak, against the petit oners-accused ,/

r I Nos,1 to 3, M/s. Yellow Stone Estates private Limited, M/s. prathipati Estates Private Limited and accused No.6 on 25,09.2023, seeking specific performance of lr/OU, dated 08.02.2023, perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein and cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney documents bearing Nos.35g5 and 3596 ot 2023, dated 01 .09.2023 and 02.09.2023 respectively. Notably, the de facto complainant has not sought any relief in respect of land in Sy.No.255. Since no interim order was granted in his favour, the de facto complainant resorted to initiation of the present criminal proceedings on 13.10.2023, in order to arm-twist them and only to settle civil disputes.

5.5. The third party by name [Vlr. Surya Narayana Keriya has lodged a complaint against the petitioners-accused Nos. l, 2 and 5 herein and another, which was registered as a case in Crime No.179 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 504 rlw.34 of lPC. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused therein before the Court concerned. The same was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C.No.27 of 2024. The accused therein have filed quash petitions before this Court and this Court, vide order, dated 24.01 .2025 in Crt.p.Nos.gSO and 357 of 2025 granted stay of all further proceedings against them, holding that I the petitioners have purchased the land in Sy.No 255 after due diligence by getting the land demarcated 5.6 The sale deeds bearing document Nos.909 )10 and 914 of 2004, dated 31 .01 .2004 clearly reflects that the Company i.e., l\//s. Prathipati Estates Private Limited is the absc I tte owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.O.13% gts., A(;. 1.07% gts. and Ac.0.13% gts in Sy.No.255/3. The sale deed bea'ing document No.4162 of 2005, dated 30.06.2005 reflects that M/s Sri Janahitha Estates, represented by l\4rs. P.T.Venkayamma, who i the mother of petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 herein, is the owner a r d possessor of Iand admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts. in Sy.No.255l3lE anc 4c.0.10 gts. in Sy.No.255/3/EE.

5.7. AII the allegations pertain to the C;r M/s. Prathipati Estates Private Limited and [Vl/s. Yello,n Private Limited. The IVIOU was also entered into by t As such, the said Companies were arrayed as defenrl suit. However, without arraying the said Companies ar; present criminal case, the de facto complainant has c the petitioners-accused Nos. l, 2, 4 and 5 as accused, , the Directors and authorized signatories of the Conrl whom no specific or individual allegations are levelled \ mpanres l_e., Stone Estates re Companies. rnts in the civil accused in the rosen to array /ho are merely anies, against n the absence of Companies being arrayed as accused, the proceedings against the petitioners are not maintainable. ln support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maksu d' y:::,::* :1"2'i::::::: "?!!f,[i' -i!?!Jifl attention of this Court to paragraph No.13, which is as follows:

13. Where a jurisdiction ls exerc,sed on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply h$ mind. The Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the paft of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed Io pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate- Vica'rious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Sfafutes indisputabty must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the paft of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions con stituti ng v icario u s I i abi I ity.

5.8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC are wholly absent in the present case. There is no false or misleading representation on the part of the petitioners, nor is there any inducement that led the de facto complainant to part with the property. lt is well settled that dishonest intention from the inception is an essential ingredient foi constituting the offence of cheating. ' lzoot) s scc oos

'11 However, a careful reading of the complaint as we I as the charge sheet does not disclose any such misrepresentation. I the petitioners had any dishonest intention to cheat lhe de facto c r nplainant, they would not have registered plots in his favour for the er1 tivalent amount of Rs.15 crores 5.9. The c;ore grievance of the de facto compla rant appears to be that, although he was willing to make the paymenl cf fifth tranche, the petitioners have sold the lands pertaining to last lr rnche in favour of a third party. Even assuming that the petitioners l-i ve violated the terms of MOU , it does not amount to cheating, b I comes under criminal breach of the ierms of the MOU, which may , ive rise to civil consequences. A breach of contractual terms cannot be elevated to the level of criminality in the absence of induceme r t or fraudulent intention from the inception

5. '10. ln support of the above contention, learned jenior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ir lnternational Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metall,t-gy and New Materials (ARCI) and others v. Nimra Cerglass Te:hnics private .

Limited and anothef , wherein, at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, it is held as follows "15. The essenfia/ ingredients to attract Section 420 IPC are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to detiver propeiy or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anylhing which is sealed or srgned or is capable of being convefted into a valuable security; and

(iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of makng the nducementr Ihe makuq of-a fals€.repre.*ntatien 4$-one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 lPC. ln order to bnng a case for the offence of cheating, it is not merely sufficient to prove that a false representation had been made, but, it is fu her necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was made in order to deceive the complainant.

16. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the cheating would depend upon the intention of the accused at the tinte of alleged inducemenl lf I is estab//shed that lhe intention of the accused was dishonest at the very time when he made a'promise and entered into a lransaction with the complainant to parl with his propedy or money, then the liability is cnminal and the accused is guilty of the offence of cheating. On the other hand, if all that is established is that a representation made by the accused has subsequently not been kept, criminal liability cannot be foisted on the accused and the only right which ' the complainant acquires is the remedy for breach of contract in a civil court. Mere breach of contract cannot.give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonesl intention ls shown at the beginning of the transaction. ln S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar. this Couft held as under: (SCC p. 250, para 21) "21 . ... ln order to constitute an offence of cheatng, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. if is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intentnn at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating." '1zoto; t scc:ae

The abot,e view in Palanitkar case [(2002) 1 :'( C 2n1 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1291 was referred to and h.l twed in Rashnt Jain v Stafe of U.P. K2014) 73 S() ) 553 r (1t014) 5 SCC (Cri) 7511" 5.1 1 . ln support of the above contention, he a r o relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others v. State of Bihar and anoth rl, wherein, at' paragraph No.15, it was held as follows: "15. ln determtning the qLlestion it has to be ke) that tlte distitlction between mere breach of cott, the offence of cheating is a fine one lt dept:'t the intention of the accused at the time of inl which ntay be Judged by hls subsequent conrltt this subsequent conduct is not the so/e li,: breach of contract cannot give rise to p;osecution for cheating unless fraudulert or :i intentrcn rs shown right at the beginnin, r tt ansadian. Lltat is il)e \me vvlten the offencc t. have been committed. Therefore it ts the intenliL is lhe glst of the offence To hold a persatl cheating it is necessary to show that he had ir or dishonest i enlion at the tinte of making th( From his ntere failure to keep up promlse sul)s such a culpable intentiort right at the beginnrnl when he ntade the prcmise cannot be presurnec ir mind 'act itnd ls Ltpot) ,cement I but for I Mere crintinal shonesl ,tf the sr/(/ lo n wltich TLulty of udulent t omise ryuently .,lltal is, 5.12 He also relied on the judgment of the ll )n'ble Supreme Court in Vesa Holdings Private Limited and anat 1er v. State of Kerala and othersa, and drawn attention of this Crr rt to paragraph Nos.12 and 'l 3, wherein, it was held as follows: ,s rno '.trcr t1l ln.r r)fian.c, ! (t 4aU1 a nar.at t lt tttr\/ .1r "12. From the decisions cited by the appelt m| the settled proposition of law is that every breach c.f :ontract would not give rise to an offence of cheating a t I only in ' izooo; ,r scc tos n (2015) 8 scc 291

l, fhose cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. lf the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amounl to cheating. ln other words for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had haudulent or dishonest intention at the time of nlaking promise or represenlation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the paft of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made ouL

13. lt is true that a given sel of facls may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the corhplainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disc/ose lhe criminal offence of cheating or not. ln the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the 4ccLlscC persons [o cheat whicli is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 lPC. ln our view the complaint does r)ot dlsc/ose any criminat olfence at atl. The criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala ftde or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The superior couds while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. ln our opinion, in view of fhese facfs allowing the pohce investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of lhe coui and the High CourT committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings." 5.1 3. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature however the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant giving a cloak of criminal offence. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lndian Oil Corporation v.

"8 lt is to be seen if a matter. which ls esse, i civil nature, ltas been given a cloak of crimina, Criminal proceedings are not a shotl cLtt ( remedies available in law. Before issuing p r criminal coLtrT has to exercise a great deal ol Fc)r the accused rl ls a serioas matter. This ( r latd ceftan principles on fhe bas,s of which tt CoutT is to exercise its jurisdictrcn under Sectk t the Code. Jurisdtction under this section lti: exercised to prevent abuse of the process of irt or othetwise to secure the ends of justice.' "11. The entire case is squarely covett recent pronoLrncentent of thts Court in the casc r Race Club (1940) Limited y. State of uttar ,) repofted h (202a) 10 SCC 690. ln the said dec,s entire law as to what co,sl/Tutes cheating ano breach of trust respectively has been exht explained. lt appears that this very decision w 't upon by the learned counsel appearing for the l)t before the High Courl. However, instead of laL)k the matter on its own merits, the High Couri lhoLr! direct the petitioner to go for mediation and thni making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th re:1 as a condition precedent. We fail to understat)d High Court should undeftake such exercise. ll Couft may either allow the petition saying t offence is disclosed or may reject the petition say no case for quashing is made out. Why should tt NEPC lndia Limited and otherss, wherein, the parallr aph No.8 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagar 5 uri v. State of lJttar Pradesho was referred to, which is as follows:

5.14. He also relied on the judgment of the Fr n'ble Supreme Court in Shai/esh Kumar Singh alias SharTesh R. Sl rgh v. State of lJttar Pradesh and othersT and drawn attention : this Court to paragraph No.1 1, which is as follows: lly of a 'ffence. 'ollter ,'ess a 'aution. ui has e Hrgh 482 of to be y coutT lbya " Delhi adesh" ct1, the rinlinal tstively , relied litioner tg into ht lit to too by indent /hy the = High lat no ry that e High 5 lzooo; o scc z:o n (zooo) z scc e:o 'zo25 INSC 869

Couft make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. lt is for the Civil Couft or Commercial Cburl as fhe case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the lB Code, 2016." 5.1 5. Neither the complaint nor the charge sheet contains any specific abusive words uttered by the petitioners against lhe de facto complainant, hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of IPC are not made out

5.16. Relying on the said judgments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

6. Followinq are the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearinq for respondent No.2-de /acfo complainant 6.1. lt is alleged that the petitioners have induced the de facto complainant to purchase the land admeasuring Ac.2.15 gts. in Sy.No.255, situated at Kallakal Village, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District, despite the fact that the said land did not have properly demarcated boundaries. Though the petitioners initially assured the de facto complainant that the said land would be registered in his name, they have failed to honour their promise after collecting substantial amounts from him. Thereafter, the petitioners began to \ r I ll l

blackmail the cie facto complainant by coercing him c purchase the said land on the terms dictated by them. The petil oners failed to register plot Nos.1, 83, 84,85 and 'l 04 in favour f lhe de facto complainant even after receipt of considerable amoun s from him and sold the same to accused No.6 and another, who lnowingly have entered into such sale transactions. The petitionen; accused Nos.4 and 5 are the representatives of accused Nos.1 to 3, vr ro always acted ' on their instructions, being fully aware of the conse: tences, for the reasons best known to them.

6.2. At the time of payment of the fifth tranclr r. the de facto complainant expressed his willingness to purchar r ali the plots mentioned in the last tranche and requested to condu: a Government Survey in Sy.No.255. However, the petitioners failed o produce any document eviOenling if," r"t"r, survey with proper c emarcation, as was agreed in the MOU, and further threatenec hrm with dire consequences. Since no survey was conducted by th: petitioners, the de facto complainant was not under an obligation to p: .chase the land in Sy.No.255. Despite this, the petitioners immediately ;old the plots in the last tranche to the third parties through Agreem<: rt of Sale-cum- General Power of Attorney documents bearing Nos.3rj )5 and 3596 of 2023, dated 01.09.2023 and 02.09.2023 respec ivety, thereby breaching the trust reposed in them and cheating the de facto complainant 6.3. A third party, namely Mr. Surya Narayana Keriya, lodged a complaint against the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 herein and another on 06.10.2023, which was registered as a case in Crime No.179 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 504 rlw. 34 of lPC. Following the completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the accused therein. Although the petitioners have produced certain documents showing that they are the owners and possessors of land in Sy No.255/3, the MOU does not specify any bye-numbers.

6.4. Clause (5) of the MOU clearly stipulates that the final sale of Plot No.1 by the petitioners to the de facto complainant was conditional upon the latter purchasing the land admeasuring Ac.2.15 gts. in Sy.No.255, subject to conducting proper survey. Hence, it is clearly established that the petitioners have misrepresented from the inception and attempted to fraudulently sell the land over which they did not have valid right and title.

6.5. ln support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine v. State \ C i ,l I

(Delhi Administration) and anothef, wherein, at paragraph No.9, it was held as follows

9. lndisputably, in a given case, a civi! J:'L ceeding as also a criminal proceeding may proceed stnt ltant:ously. Cognizance in a criminal proceeding can be t ken by the criminal cottrt upon arriving at the satisf actt) t that' there exists a prima facie case."

Serious allegations are levelled agarr st the petrtroners herein. All the allegations levelled in the complain as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence his is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage 6 7. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition Learned Additional PubIc Prosecutor rppearing for the State, contended that specific allegations are ltt,elled against the petrtioners, which is a subject matter of trial. l-lt: rce, he prayed to dismiss the petition ANALYSIS FINDINGS AND CON CLUSI,-N B 1 Upon careful consideration of the submir; ;ions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides and the material 1 laced on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties e r ses purely out of contractual obligations and is essentially civil i- nature. lt is an admitted fact that the petitioners and the de fact<t complainant have B 'lzoooy s scc szt

Ci entered into a lvlemorandum of Understanding, dated 08.02.2023. lt is not in dispute that the de facto complainant paid Rs.15,00,00,0001 to the petitioners in four tranches, pursuant to which land equivalent to the said value was registered in his favour 8.2. The allegation against the petitioners IS that they have induced the de facto complainant to purchase land admeasuring 4c.2.15 gts. in Sy.No.255 of Kallakal Village, Manoharabad Mandal, IVledak District, which does not belong to them, and that they failed to fulfill their obligations under the MOU by registering Plot Nos 'l , 83, 84, 85 and 104 in favour of the de faclo complainant. lnstead, they sold the same in favour of accused No.6 and another- However, it is also an admitted fact that the de facto complainant had already instituted a civil suit questioning the alleged non-performance of the contractual terms in the MOU by the petitioners. The said suit is pending adjudication, and no interim relief has been granted in favour of the de facto com plainant.

8.3. lt is to be noted that the registration of plots in the final tranche was expressly made subject to purchase of land admeasuring Ac.2.15 gts. in Sy.No.255. The civil suit, which is the appropriate forum for resolution of contractual disputes, does not contain any claim, relief, or issue in respect of the said land, although there is a reference to the same in the pleadings. Despite being the mair present complaint, its conspicuous absence from the p suit casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the a by the de facto complainant in the complaint. I complainant had genuinely believed that the petiticr over the land in Sy.No.255 and had deceived him. sought appropriate declaratory or consequential reliel the civil proceedings. The failure to do so suggests j complaint has been made as an attempt to give a c,r what is essentially a civil dispute arising out rt performance of contractual obligations. Significanfly e registration of plots in the final tranche was subject to 6 in Sy.No.255, the de facfo complaindnt, without se r whatsoever in respect of the said land has confined hi: the registration of plots in the final tranche. rllegation in the 'ayer in the civil legations made the de facto ers lacked title he would have n that regard in rat the present minal colour to alleged non- ven though the urchase of land king any relief claim solely to

8.4. The petitioners have placed on record the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.909, 910, 914 of 2OO4 a,r j 4162 of 2005, which reveals that the petitioners are the lawfr- owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.O.13% gts., \c.1 .07% gts., Ac.O.13T+ gts., Ac.0.10 gts. and Ao.0.10 gts., aggreg€ ting to Ac.2.15 gts. situated in Sy.No.255/3. These registered documer ts, being public documents carrying a statutory presumption of validity, prima facie establish the petitioners' laMul title and possession over the land admeasuring Ac.2.15 gts. in Sy.No.25513 ll is also pertinent to note that the MOU, dated 08.02.2023 does not contain any reference to sub-divisions or bye-numbers of land admeasuring Ac 2.15 gts in Sy.No.255, nor does it indicate any specific extent allegedly not owned by the petitioners. Since the II/OU itself does not stipulate any sub- numbers or disputed extents, the petitioners' ownership, as supported by the registered sale deeds, cannot be discredited on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by the de faclo complainant. Therefore, the atlegation that the petitroners have induced the de facto complainant by misrepresenting their ownership over the land in Sy.No.255 cannot be accepted.

8.5. Significantly, when the material on record demonstrates prima facie lavvful title in favour of the petitioners and does not disclose any misrepresentation as to ownership from the inception, the ingredient of dishonest intention, which is a sine qua non for the offence of cheating, is conspicuously absent. From the inception if such dishonest or fraudulent intention truly existed, the petitioners would not have registered equivalent land in favour of lhe de facto complainant for the amount paid by him c

8.6. lt is the contention of the de facto com6lainant that the oblrgation to purchase land in Sy.No.255 would aris = only after the petitroners conducting a proper survey, but without ;onducting such survey, the petitioners compelled him to purchase t re said land by showing an outdated map. ln contrast, it is the <;, rntention of the petitioners that a survey was indeed conducted, and rs per the terms of MOU, the purchase of land in Sy.No.255 was a cor Cition precedent for the de facfo complainant to secure registration of plot No.1 in the final tranche. As the de facfo complainant failed to p,r rchase the said land within stipulated time, it was sold to accused N r .6 and another, strictly in accordance with the terms of the lVlOU. 8.7 Even assumrng that the petitioners sold the r the last tranche to third pa(ies, such conduct woul(j amount to breach of contractual obligations under the I squarely within the domain of civil law and does no liability. A mere breach of contract, in the abserr establishing dishonest or fraudulent intention from th: not constitute an offence of cheating under Section matters require adjudication in a civil forum and canr into criminal proceedings in the absence of the basic r offence of cheating. A mere allegation that the petiti: ands relating to at the highest, 40U, which falls attract criminal rce of material inception, does t20 lPC. These lt be converted gredients of the rers threatened -/

the de facto complainant does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 of lPC, as no specific abusive words have been mentioned in the complaint. ln the absence of such explicit averments, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 504 of IPC are not made out. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case 8.8. Furthermore, alleging criminal trespass and mischief over the land in Sy.No.255, third parties have lodged a complaint against the petitioners-accused Nosrl , 2 and 5 herein and another, resulting in registration of Crime No.179 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,427 and 504 r/w. 34 of lPC. The said crime was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C.No.27 of 2024. Upon the petitioners filing quash petitions, this Court, by order, dated 24.01 .2025, granted stay of all further proceedings, holding that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.255

8.9. A perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the MOU was executed by the Companies i.e., M/s. Prathipati Estates Private Limited and M/s. Yellow Stone Estates Private Limited. Specific allegations are levelled against the Companies and their Management. Hqwever, the present complaint was t lodged only against the

B 10. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this considered opinion that there was no dishonest or frar on the part of the peti.tioners from the inception, particrr were having valid tifle over the land in Sy.No.255. - even if taken at face value, disclose a dispute relatit contractual obligations and do not satisfy the essentie cheating. Significanfly, a civil suit has already been i de facto complainant against the petitioners ar adjudication. The dispute between the parties is, therrr in nature, which has been given a criminal comptexior settle civil disputes through criminal proceedings. petitioners-accused Nos.1 , 2, 4 and 5, who are t 1 ) Directors and authorized signatories, in their individuar capacity, lir thout arraigning the companies as accused and without attributing ar'specific rore to the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. ln such cir :umstances, no vicarious liability can be fastened upon the petitio,:rs, without the Companies being arrayed as accused. lourt is of the dulent intention larly when they he allegations, , g to breach of I ingredients of rstituted by the d is pending cre, purely civil with a view to

8.11. ln Paramjeet Batra v. Sfate of lJttarakhance, at paragraph No.7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court helct as follows: t lzot:; t I scc ozs

"7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Coud has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only foi the purpose of preventing abise of the process of any coud or otherwise to secure bnds of justice..Whether a complaint dr,sc/oses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essentia/ ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Courl mus, see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a ctoak of crimnal offence. ln such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case. the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse ofprocess of court."

8.12. Applying the above principle to the present case, I am of the considered view that this case is a fit one to exercise the inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS, in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to meet the ends of justice

Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.'185 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial ttlagiskate of First Class at tt/ledak Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. M. OSMAN ALt BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, Medak.

2. The Station House officer, Manoharabad Police station, Medak District.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

4. One CC to Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to Mr. Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI

6. One CC to Mr. Appasani Ram Dheeraj, Advocate [OPUC]

7. One CC to Mr. L. Preetham Reddy, Advocate IOPUC]

8. Two CD Copies a

HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025

COMMON ORDER

CRLP.Nos .13763,13735 and 1 374O of 21t24 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ( \to + (.-. O) s *$ (o :.r Q:o J- H9 *