Partly allowed

Ponagandla Jyothi and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC13 Aug 2024CRLP/3036/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two accused persons (A3 and A4) in a cheating case due to lack of specific allegations, directing the trial court to continue the trial against the remaining accused (A1 and A2).

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners A3 and A4; directed trial court to proceed with trial against remaining accused A1 and A2.

Ponagandla Jyothi and 3 Others Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: 3036 oF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ponagandla Jyothi, ,W/o.Naravana Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Agricurture, R/o.Kancribancra Virage, trletta#eiuvu ([/), suryapeta District.

¶9

Ponagandla Narayana Reddy, S/6.janurJnun neOOV, Aged about 48 years, Occ Agricutture, R/o Kandibanda Vi,age, tv.td;;;;;r"- f rl,".ar",rrri,l"

¶10

Ponagandla Raj eevu Reddy, S/o.Naravana Reddy, Aged about 21 years,

¶11

Occ.Ag ricu lt u re. District. Rl/o.Kandibancta Vilage, fr4"ffaif,er,lvu iff/l, Suryapeta

¶12

4 Ponag_andla Deep)ka, S/o_Narayana Reddy, Aged about 20 years, Occ.Houe Wife, Rl/o. Ka nd ibanda Viilage, Meilacheruvl lfrl], S urilpeta Oistrict. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4

¶13

AND

¶14

ff9 ltate of Telangana and Another, Rep, by public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ..... RESPONDENT

¶15

2 Naragoni Neeraja, W/o.Shanker, ngea aOoui +8 Vurrr, O"" Govt Employee, R/o. Huzur Nagar Town, Survapeta District.

¶16

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l'4emorandum of Grounds or crrmilat'petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.l l saizozl, on the fire of Junior civir Judge at Huzurnagar, against the petitioners/Accus"J rrro. r to 4 herein .

¶18

t.A. NO: 10F 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 482 0f cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds or cri,,inJ'p"tition,the High court mav be Junior pteased civir to Judge stay or at a, Huzurnagar, furlher proceedinss agarnst ihe in petitioners/Accused C.i.r.ro.rzsiai,lzoii, No.1 J. to ii "'iil 4 herein", and pending disposal of the Ciiminai petrtion .' This Petition "o.ilg...gn for hearing,upon perusing the l\4emorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and ,p6n'r,urling the arguments of sri vENKATARAN/ANAIAH K-,Advocate ror tire petitioner and the pubric prosecutor (TG/AP) on beharf of the Respond"nt r.to. t - anl"oi sri_v. Brahmaiah chowdarym Advocate for the Respondent No_ 2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3O36 OF 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This criminal petition is filed under Secti on 4g2 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to A4 in C.C.No.l75B of 2021, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad (for short, "the trial Court").

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. l -State and Mr. V. Brahmaiah Chowdar5r, learned counsel for respondent No.2. perused the record.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that on O2.03.2013 respondent No.2/complainant entered into an agreement with Al to purchase the land in Survey No.663/A and 663/aa to an extent of Ac.6.0O gts consisting of Mango Garden, Bore wells, electric motors and other trees from Al and the said land situated at Kandibanda Village limits of Mellacheruvu Mandal. The respondent No.2 paid an

¶26

)

¶27

EW,J C.LP. No.3O36 oJ 2O2O

¶28

amount of Rs.23,00,00O/- in total to A1 on different dates Subsequently, the complainant asked A1 to register the land as agreed, but A1 postponed the same intentionally on one pretext or the other. Basing on the complaint of the complainant, the Station House Officer, Mellacl'rervu Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.27 of 2O2O for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of IPC against A1 to A4. Alter completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused and the same w'as numbered as C.C.No.1451 of 2O2O on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad. Subsequentl.y, the number of the above Ca-lendar Case and the name of the Court rvere amended vide order dated 30.08.2023 in I.A.No.0i of 2023 in Crl.P.No.3036 of 2O2O as C.C.No. 1758 of 202 I on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to ll1 quash the proceedings against the petitioners C.C.No.1758 of 2O2L before the trial Court

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a false case is foisted against the petitioners herein and

¶30

)

¶31

EW,J crLP.No-3036 oJ 2O2O

¶32

nowhere in the complaint it is stated that in whose presence the alleged agreement had taken place. He further contended that though the alleged agreement was said to have taken place in the year, 2O 13, the complaint has been lodged after six long years i.e., on 10.03.2020 and no reasons are assigned as to why the de-facto complainant kept quiet for six long years without initiating any legal action against the petitioners/A1 to A4 and what prompted her to make a complaint against the petitioners a-fter six years. He further contended that A2 is husband, ,{3 and A4 are biological children of A1 and tl-rey are no \'ay connected with the alleged offence as alleged by the prosecution and they were falsely implicated in the above case u,ithout there being any evidence against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that there exists a civil dispute between the parties and criminal^prosecution cannot to used as an instrument or weapon to satisfy private vendetta with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶33

¶34

EW,J Crt.P.No.3O36 oJ 2O2O

¶35

l,earned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned cor:.nsel for the petitioners and contended that unless and until a full, fledged trial IS conducted, the truth will not come out. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶36

Having regard to the submissions made by the respective counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court opines that no specific allegations have been made in the complaint against A3 and 44, except stating that 43 and ,{4 instigated A1 as they are living under the same roof. Therefore, the proceedings against A3 and A4 are liable to be quashed. Hor,r,ever, since it cannot be presumed that the said facts are not known to 42, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires adjudication, at length. Hence, the trial Court is directed to conduct a full-fledged trial and alter examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, pass appropriate orders as exped(iously as possible.

¶37

¶38

EryJ CrLP.No.3036 of 2O2O

¶39

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is^{disposed ot} while quashing the proceedings against the^{petitioners/A3} and A4 in C.C.No.1758 of 2021, the^{learnedtrial Courtis} directed to proceed with^the trial^{against the petitioners/Al} and A2. However, appearance^{of the petitioners/Aland A2} before the trial Court is^{dispensed with during the course} of trial, except as and when^{specifically required by the}

¶40

trial Court.

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending if^{any, shall stand} closed. sd/^{. A.V.S. PRASAD} AS SISTANT^REGIS

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{JuniorCivilJudge' Huzurnagar'}

¶46

2 One^{CC to SRIVENKATARAMANAIAHK Advocate[OPUCI}

¶47

One^{CC to SRI' V' Brahmaiah Chowdary' Advocate[OPUCI}

¶48

Two^{CCsto ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'High Courtfor the State} of Telangana^{at HYderabad [OUT]}

¶49

Two^{CD Copies}

q TL/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/08/2024

.+--'
I rrE
( .(.
(
0L I rut
a?)
t
i
E

¶54

ORDER

¶55

CRLP.No.3036 of 2O20

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶57

g4a
ft-

Ponagandla Jyothi and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponagandla Jyothi and 3 Others 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

Shrikant Oza Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Chunduru Phani Krishna Prasad Vs Smt. Julakanti Swapna

Pedduri Suresh Vs the State of Telangana

M. Vijaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Madireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram Vs The State of Telangana

N. Prem Chander, Hyd Vs Myakala Shiva Prakash, Sec-Bad and Anr.