Dismissed

Md.Munawar Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022CRLP/15780/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a quashment petition challenging an FIR registered for criminal offences arising from a land sale dispute. The Court ruled that the FIR could not be quashed despite a subsequent sale deed, directing police to complete investigation without affecting the arrest of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; Police directed to complete investigation expeditiously considering the sale deed; Arrest of petitioners not directed during investigation.

Md.Munawar Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

N/ONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION N O: 15780 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

Md.Munawar Ali, S/o. Shaik Ali, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retired Emplovee,

¶8

!. lvtQ lqVaO^{Ali. S/o ltrlunwarAli, Aged about 39 y-ears,Occ:Business,} 3. Iti4d. Mohd. Ahmed Ali, S/o Anwar, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, All residents of H. No. 18-82141132, Moinbagh, Mominpet, Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...PET|T|ONERS/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The- State of Telangana, Rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶12

M. Krishnam Raju, S/o Late Narayana Raju, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Retired employee,.Ryo^plot No.57, H. No'.7-1:2S12tAl42, Shivbagh Colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR vide Crime No. 17 of 2016, on the fiie of the tVlominpet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, pending before Hon,ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶15

CRLPMP. NO: 17868 0F 2016

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court,may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in FIR vide Crime No. 17 of 2016, on the file of the lVlominpet Police station, Ranga Reddy District, pending before Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District Telangana

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Between:

¶19

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶20

And

¶21

Md.[Vlunawar Ali, S/o. Shaik Ali,

¶22

Md. Layaq Ali, S/o Munwar Ali,

¶23

Md. Mohd. Ahmed Ali, S/o Anwar,

¶24

......Petitioner/ Respondent

¶25

All are Fl/o.H.No.1B-8214l132, Moinbagh, ttilominpet,^{Village & Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District

¶26

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED

¶27

4 M. Krishnam Raju,^{S/o Late Narayana RajqAg-e-dgp.out 60 years,.Occ:.} Ameerpet, n"iii"o "rpiov"1=, Hyderabad.Ryo^ptot No. s7, n. No'.7-1:25121A/42,^{shivbagh colony,} (R4 is not necessary PartY)

¶28

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶29

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High court may be} pleased to vacate the stay^granted in^{crlP No.l5780/2016 on the file of the} Hon'ble High Court^{dtd: 8/1 112016.}

¶30

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearingtheargumentsof} Sri.cH.SRlN|VASA^{RAJU,Advocate for the Petitioners and of the AssistantPublic} Prosecutor^(TG) on behalf^{of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the} Respondent No.

¶31

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶32

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARIUN CRIMINAL PETITION No.15780 of 2016 ORDER:

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Notice taken out to respondent No.2 is served but there is no representation.

¶34

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashment of FIR No.17 of 201,6 on the file of Mominpet Police Station, pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magiskate., Vikarabad, Rangareddy District, registered against the petitioners/accused for the offences under Sections 420, 427, 447,323, 504,506 and 307 of Indian

¶35

Penal Code.

¶36

The contents of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the de-facto complainant would reveal that the de-facto complainant has entered into the Agreement to purchase with the petitioners herein and other accused on 31.12.2014 in respect of land in Sy.No.138 /A and 138/AA

¶37

¶38

admeasuring Ac.04-00 gts., and Ac.3-39 gts., respectively situated at Khaslabad Village, Moinabad Mandai, Rangareddy. Part of the amount was also paid. The contents of the complaint further go to show that on 28-09-2015 all the accused have trespassed into the land in Sy.No.135 belonging to the son of the de-facto complainant and also trespassed into land in Sy.No.134 belong to the sister of the de-facto cornplainant and damaged the crop, boundaries stones worth Rs.1,20,000/-. They also abused de-facto complainant in filthy language and also threatened the de-facto complainant to kill. A complaint is filed by the de-facto complainant under Section 200 of CI.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, which was forwarded to the Police under Section 156 (3) of CI.P.C on which Police registerecl the same as FIR.

¶39

Aggrieved by the registration of FIR No.17 of 2016 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420,427, 447,323,504,506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have filed this Criminal Petition.

¶40

¶41

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to filing of the Criminal case, the petitioners and their family members have executed Registered Sale Deed dated 23-"12-2015 in favour of de-facto complainant as agreed earlier and thereby, now the de-facto complainant has no grievance against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the case filed by the de-facto complainant is purely civil in nature and allegations levelled against the petitioners are only omnibus and therefore sought for quashment of FIR No.17 of 2076.

¶42

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Ganesh, on the other hand,, submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners and other accused are serious in nature and during the course of investigation, truth or otherwise of the allegations would come out. Hence sought for dismissal of the same.

¶43

¶44

Considering the above, it is clear that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners and^other accused, this Court in Section 482 of Cr.P.C application cannot 1n go into details respect of rights of parties under the agreement of sale and registered sale deed executed subsequently. Hence, basing on the grounds alteged, the FIR cannot be quashed. However, Police can be directed to consider all these grievances of the petitioners during the course of investigation, and conclude investigation.

¶45

Considering above, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Police to complete the investigation AS expeditiously AS possible, by taking into consideration, execution of sale deed by the petitioner in favour of de-facto complainant. Further, Police are directed not to affect the arrest of the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 during the course of investigation.

¶46

¶47

With the above directions, this Criminal^Petitionis

¶48

disposed of.

¶49

As a sequel, pending N{iscellaneous Applications, if any,

¶50

shall stand closed.

¶51

Sd/-K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Judicial First^{Class Magistrate' Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy-District.} 2 iii" strii"" H"use^{Officer, "Mominpet potice station,RangaReddy District} 3 i;; ba; to the^{Public Prosecutor'(Ts),HighCourt for the State of} Telangana, Hyderabad^(OUT) 4 One iC to Sri Ch.Srinivasa^{Raiu,Advocate (OPUC)} 5 Two CD Copies 6 One Spare^CoPY Kj \ +-

HIGH COURT

DATED:'1810712022

tl [Ut'

ORDER

CRLP.No.15780 of 2016

¶58

CRL.P. IS DISPOSED OF.

Md.Munawar Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Munawar Ali and 2 Ors. v. the State of Tg., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.C.Reddy, Mahaboobnagar Dist. Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Avala Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

E.K.Girish Singh and 2 Others Vs The state of Telangana and another

Singarapu Surendar Vs The State of Telangana

M.Chandra Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Poleni Vishnuvardhan Rao Vs The State of Telangana