Allowed

Dr.N.Venugopal v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC24 Nov 2023CRLP/12534/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed multiple criminal petitions seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that the dispute pertains to civil title issues where allegations were based on documents predating the confirmed ownership of the de facto complainant. Continued criminal proceedings were deemed an abuse of process of law, resulting in the quashing of proceedings against the petiti

What did the court decide?

The FIR and all criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners were quashed as no reason to continue trial was found.

Dr.N.Venugopal Vs the State of Telangana and Another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32ss l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

c RIMINAL PETITION Nos: 12534. 0. 9699. 11214 and 1 59 ot 2014

¶7

criminal Petition No.12534 of 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. N. Velugopal, S/o N. Mahankali, Aged 54 years, Occ. Govt. Service (Civil Surgeon) R/o Plot No. 139, Balram Nagar, Safilguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioners/Accused Nos.21

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

Alwal Roopam, S/o A. Nagaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Govt. Employee Rr/o H.No.6-1 13, Old lvlalkajgiri, near Ram lr4andir, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR in Cr.No.443 of 2014 on the file of P.S. Malkajgiri, Cyberabad in so far as the petitioner/Accused No. 21 herein is concerned in the interest of justice.

¶16

l.A NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 12879 0F 2014)

¶17

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 Cr. No. 443 ot 2014 on the file of SHO Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, including arrest of the pelitioner; in the interest of justice.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SRI RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRI VIZARATH ALl, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. VENKATESULU, Advocale for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

Criminal Petition^{No.9480of 2014}

¶20

Between:

¶21

G.Narasimha^{Yadav, s/o Mallaiah,aged about 61 yrs, Occ: Business}

¶22

2 G Shakunthala, W/o^{G NarasimhaYadav, Aged about 52 yrs, Occ: Housewife}

¶23

G Jai Kishan^{Yadav,S/o G Naraismha Yadav,Aged about 29 yrs' Occ:} Business

¶24

G Anupama, W/o Jai^{KishanYadav,Aged about 28 yrs, Occ: Housewife}

¶25

All are Rl/o'11 No.1-8-35,^{Seetharampuram Bowenpally, Secunderabad}

¶26

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{NO.7tO 1O}

¶27

AND

¶28

1 The State of Telangana,^{through SHO/PSlMalkajgiri,Cyberabad Rep by} Public Prosecutor,^{High Courtof Judicature at Hyderabad}

¶29

2 Alwal Roopam, S/o A.^{Nagaiah,Aged about 59 years, Occ: Govt. Employee} R/o H.No.6-113. Old Mirzalguda,^{Malkajgiri, Cyberabad}

¶30

.,.RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶31

Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the lvlemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be} pleased to call for the records in FIR No. 443 of^{2O14on the file of PS Malkajgiri,} cyberabad an reference from^{the court of the Hon'bleX Metropolitan Magistrate,} Cyberabad tvlalkajgiri and^{quash the same.}

¶32

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014^(CRLPMP. NO:^{9273 OF 201 4)}

¶33

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to grant stay of all further^{proceedingsincluding the arrest of the} petitioners in FIR No, 443 of 2014 on the file of PS Malkajgiri, Cyberabad^on reference from the court of the Hon'ble X Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Cyberabad,} tr/alkajgiri, pending disposal of the criminal^petition.

¶34

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusingthe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition^{andupon hearing the arguments of} SRI RAVINDER REDDY representing SRI N.^{NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the} Petitioner and the SRI VIZARATH ALl, Assistant^{Public Prosecutor on behalf of} the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. VENKATESULU,^{Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2.

¶35

r:"

¶36

Criminal Peti^{tionNo.9699of 2014}

¶37

Between:

¶38

Polishetty Padmini, W/o^{P.tr/adhusudhan Rao, Aged about 53 years} 2. Polishetty Vigneshwar^{Rao, S/o P.Madhusudhan Rao, Aged about 25 years,} 3. Polishetty Raghuram, S/o^{P.Madhusudhan Rao, Aged about 23 years,} The above are Rl/o 9-45, Venkateswara^{NagarColony, Ivlalkajgiri,Hyderabad'}

¶39

Polishetty Anirudh, S/o^{P.Janardhan Rao, Aged about 36 years,} 5. Polishetty Vani, W/o^{P.Janardhan Rao, Aged about 50 years} The above are R/o Flat^{No.510, Manju Vigneswara Towers,Yadav Nagar,} Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-

¶40

¶41

...Petitioner/Accused^{Nos.11 to 14 and 19}

¶42

AND

¶43

The State of Telangana,^{rep by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Judicatureat} Hyaeriuad, for the"State^{of Teiangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh'}

¶44

Alwal Roopam,^{S/o A.Nagaiah,Agedabout 59 years, Occ: GovtEmployee,} R/o H.No.6-1 13, old^{Malkajgiri,near Ram Mandir, Hyderabad.}

¶45

...Respondents

¶46

PetitionunderSection482ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the lvtemorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court may} bepleasedtoquashtheFlRincrimeNo.443of2ol4onthefileoftheSHo tvalkajgiri, Cyberabadⁱⁿ the^{interest of justice.}

¶47

l.A NO: 1 OF 201 c^{RLPMP.NO: 9533OF 2014)}

¶48

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C praying that in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High courtmay} be pleased to stay all^{further proceedings in crime No. 443 ol 2014 on the file of} the SHO Malkajgiri, Cyberabad^{in the interestof justice.}

¶49

l.A. NO: 2OF 2014(CRLPMP.^{NO: 12976 0F 20141}

¶50

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to extend until further orders^{the interim stay grantedon 04.09-2014in} the above in Crl.P.No.9699 of 2014.

¶51

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2014^(CRLPMP. NO:^{1s325 oF20141}

¶52

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition' the High Court may}

¶53

be pleased to extend until^{further orders the interim stay granted on 04-09-2014} in the above Crl.P.No.9699 oI^2014.

¶54

l.A. NO: 1 OF² 015(CRLPMP.^{NO:1713 0F 201s)}

¶55

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in thecircumstances} stated in the lvlemorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition, the HighCourtmay} be pleased to extend until further^{ordersthe interim stay granted on 4-9-2014in} the above Crl.P.No.9699 of 2014.

¶56

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'16^{(CRLPMP. NO: 702 OF 2016)}

¶57

Petition under Section 320⁽⁶⁾ of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petition, the HighCourtmay} be pleased to^permit the^petitioner to^{compromise the case in Crime No.443 of} 2O14 on the file of the PS Malkajgiri, Cyberabad.

¶58

l.A NO: 2 OF 2016^(CRLPMP. NO:^{703OF 2016)}

¶59

Petition under Section 320 Rlw 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 record compromise and^quash the^{proceedingsin} Crime No.443 of 2014 on the file of SHO, PS, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad.

¶60

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the lr/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^A. RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri VIZARATH ALl, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. VENKATESULU, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶61

¶62

Criminal Petition No.11214 of 2014

¶63

Between:

¶64

Tirupathaiah, S/o. late Mallaiah, Aged 51 years, Occ: Employee R/o.13-95/2, Sanjaynagar Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶65

...Petitioner/Accused Nos.24

¶66

AND

¶67

The State of Telangana, rep by Public Proseculor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh_

¶68

Alwal Roopam, S/o ANagaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.6-113, Old tr/lalkajgiri, near Ram Mandir, Hyderabad.

¶69

...Respondents

¶70

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lr,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may

¶71

-r:,. .t{r

¶72

be pleased to Quash^{the FIR in cr. No. 443 of 2014 on the file of sHo IMalkajgiri,} Cyberabad^{in so far againstthe petitionersherein.}

¶73

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLPMP.^{NO: 11322} F 2014)

¶74

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to stay all^{further proceedings in Cr.No.443of 2014 on the file of SHO} Vaitalgiri, Cyberabad,^{including arrestof the petitioner, pending disposal of the} criminal^petition.

¶75

This Petition coming on^{for hearing,upon perusingthe ltilemorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand uponhearingthe argumentsof Sri A'} RAVINDER REDDY. Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the Sri VIZARATHALI,} Assistant Public Prosecutor^{on behalfof the RespondentNo.1 and of Sri K'} VENKATESULU, Advocate^{for the RespondentNo.2}

¶76

:ffi

¶77

Criminal Petition No.12659^{ot 2014}

¶78

Between:

¶79

Alwal Mohan, S/o. Alwal^{Narayana,Aged 60 years,Occ: business}

¶80

Alwal Veeresham,^{S/o. Alwal Narayana,Aged55 years, Occ: Govt. employee}

¶81

Alwal Krishna,^{S/o. Alwal Narayana, Aged 49 years, Occ: business}

¶82

Smt. Padma, Wo. Dashratha,^{D/o.Alwal Narayana,aged48 years,Occ} Housewife

¶83

Smt. Vani, Wo. Anil^{D/o. Alwal Narayana,Aged 45 years,Occ: Housewife}

¶84

All Rr/o. 6-1 14, Old^{ti4alkajgiri, Hyderabad.}

¶85

...Petitioner/Accused^Nos.1 to⁵

¶86

AND

¶87

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by PublicProsecutor, High Court of Judicature} at Hyderabad.

¶88

Alwal Roopam, S/o^{A.Nagaiah,Aged about 59 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,} R/o H.No.6-1^'13, old Malkajgiri, near^{Ram Mandir, Hyderabad.}

¶89

ffi.d

¶90

...Respondents

¶91

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in thecircumstances} stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be^pleased to^quash the^{FIR in CrimeNo. 443 ol 2014 on the file of the P.S.} Malkajgiri, Cyberabad in so far as the^{petitioner/Accused No.1 to 5 in the interest} of^justice.

¶92

:F,'

¶93

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 4(CRLPMP. NO:^{13045OF 2014}

¶94

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the lt/emorandum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to stay^all further^{proceedings in Cr.No.443of 2014 on the file of SHO} Malkajgiri, Cyberabad, including arrest^{of the petitioners/AccusedNos.1 to 5,} pending disposal of the criminal^petition.

¶95

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLPMP. NO: 704^{OF 2016} I

¶96

Petition under Section 320⁽⁶⁾ of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may} be pleased to^permit the^{petitionerto compromise the case in Crime No.443 of} 2014 on the file of the PS, Malkajgiri,^Cyberabad.

¶97

l.A. NO: 2OF 2016^(CRLPMP. NO:^{705 OF 2016)}

¶98

Petition under Section 320 Rlw 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the} High Court may be^pleased to record compromise^{and quash the proceedingsin} Crime No.443 of 2O14 on the file of SHO, PS, Malakjgiri,^Cyberabad.

¶99

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^A. RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri VIZARATH^ALl, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri^K. VENKATESULU, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶100

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶101

ffi;,q

¶102

... ?a..

¶103

':':,4i' .-'.i|t
/
rl
,/.,
/' J..

¶104

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E. V. VENUGOPAL}

¶105

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.¹ 2534.9480^{9699.LL2L4*nd} t2659 0F 20L4

¶106

COMMONORDER:

¶107

These criminal petitions^{are fiIed seeking to quash the FIR} rn 443 of 2Ot4 on the file of Malkajgiri^{againstpetitioner/accused} no.21 in CrI.P.No.12534,^{petitioners/ accused No.7 to1O in} Crl.P.No.9480,^petitioners/ accused^{no. 11 to14 and 19 in} Crl.P.No.9699, petitioner/accused^{No.24 in Crl.P.No'll2l4of} 2014 and petitioners/accused^{No. 1 to 5 in Crl.P.No'12659of} 20t4.

¶108

Sri Ravinder Reddy,^{Learned standing counsel} representing on behalf of the^{petitioners would submit that the} petitioners herein were arrayed^{as accused in FIR No'443 of 2Ol4} on the file of Malkajgiri^{PS for the offences under section42O,} 423, 427,447,323,504, 506^{IPC and section156 (3) of Cr'P'C'} and would submit that^{the petitioners are bonafide purchasers} after verifying the^{proper sale deed of his vendor and the link} documents. The learned^{counsel would submit that the entire} issue is^pertaining to^{the civil disputebetween the defacto} complainant^{and the other accusedwhoare having civil disputes} arnong themselves before^{the appropriaterevenuecourts. But so}

¶109

¶110

far as the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are bonafide purchasers. Whiie drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR, learned counsel would submit that the charge sheet is pending before X Metropolitan Magistrate a,d it is a, admitted fact that the defacto complainant,s rights have been conferred by the Tahsildar vide its order dated 10.09.2013 in Case No. B/772/2OL2 and the allegations made by the petitioners were that during the pendency of the cases in respect of the subject land accused no.l and other accused in collusion with other persons alienated the land under various documents dated 12.8.1999, 23.to.200r, 08.o4.2002, 24.O7.2003, r5.o4.2004, 17.O4.2OO4, 19.O9.2OtO, 20.Og.2OtO, 23.Og.2OtO in between the other accused persons under cheating tactics whiie violating the orders of the Hon'ble authority only to create further multiplicity of the litigation.

¶111

Learned standing counsel for unofficial respondent would submit that it is an admitted fact that the rights of the defacto complainant have been averred by the Tahsildar and with the cheating tactics adopted by the accused in collusion with each other by creating alienated documents which are registered much earlier as stated supra to the rights conferred by the defa

ll.

./.

complainant and therefore^{would .submit that thedefacto} complainant came to be the^{ownerby the virtue of orderdated} 10.09.2013 and therefore^{the quashing of FIR against petitioners} does not sustain and it is against^{law and offences cannotbe} attributed to the petitioners^{who have been arrayed as accused} who are the bonafide^{purchasers ald has got nothing to do in the} civil dispute between^{accusedaldothers and the civil Court} would confer the title and^{obviouslythe frnal hearing of the civil} courts is pending upon the^{petitionersand also criminal} proceedings which amounts to^{abuse of process of law. Hence} seeks to allow the criminal^{petitionas againstthe peLitioners'}

¶116

On the other hand learned^{counsel Sri K'Venkatesulu} would submit that it is^{the defactocomplainant, Mr.A.Narayana} and A.Ramulamma^{entered into compromise among themselves} pertaining to schedule of^{property Ac.3.10 gts in surveynos' 891} and, 892 of Malkajgiri^{village vide its orders dt'10'09'2013} relinquishing the rights^{in favour of defactocomplainant, in fact} in the manner to benefit^{themselves and accused and upon prima} facie conclusion the criminal^{case does not attract and} accordingly the matter^{has been referred by the learned} Magistrate and the respondent-police^{investigated and filed}

¶117

¶118

¶119

charge sheet and unless ald until the trial is continued the truth cannot be known and hence seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶120

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would also submit that since this matter is pending from 9 long years due to operation of stay the trial could not be conducted and until it is continued the truth cannot be elicited and seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶121

Having regard to the learned counsel for the petitioners and unofficial respondent alrd learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that so far as petitioners are concerned, nowhere it has been specifically alleged against the petitioners that the acts of the petitioners in colluding with the other accused to defeat the interest of the petitioners, much less the sections imposed as against the petitioners to agitate the defacto complainant and moresoever it is al admitted fact that the defacto complainant has become owner on 10.9.20 13 and the main allegations made against the accused was with the document which is registered much prior to the ownership declared by the defacto complainant by the learned Tahsildar order B/772/2012, dt. 10.09.2013 ought to have taken by invoking the civil provisions and so far as the complaint is

¶122

¶123

¶124

concerned it is pertaining to the dale^{14.07.2014 as againstthe} petitioners. Therefore this Court does not Iind any reason^to continue the trial as against the petitioners which^would

¶125

ultimately result in abuse of process of law.

¶126

Accordingly this criminal petition is allowed'^{Proceedings as} against the accused stands^quashed.

¶127

Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending if any,^{shall stand closed.}

¶128

//TRUE COPY//

¶129

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT GIST R..,

,ffi, sil&9, ' ".r"

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Malkajgiri 2. The Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶134

Two CCs to the Public Proseculor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶135

One CC to SRl. A. RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶136

One CC to SRl. K. VENKATESULU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶137

Two CD Copies

if.

kam

\ . rl^ifit .rq-

HIGH COURT

:_'1&

DATED:2411112023

ffi

COMMON ORDER

CRLP.Nos.12534, 9480, 9699,¹¹²¹⁴ and 12659 of 2014

¶149

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE ALLOWED

¶150

R 1HE IS rA r,,
(s
11 t;tii
t) ?0,)4
a,/
7
--....----''-a

¶151

e{
h,V
<)

¶152

&ir

Dr.N.Venugopal v. the State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.Venugopal v. the State of Telangana 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

Miss. Neha Vedre Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Dobbikar Bhagirathji, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Meerugu Leelavathi, Adilabad Dist. Vs the State of Telangana, Rep by Pp.

Waseem Ahmed and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

Mohd Jameel S/o Mohd. Mahaboob Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. I.K.F. Auto Finance, Vs The State of Telangana