Dismissed

B.Ramesh Babu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Oct 2024CRLRC/710/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner, an accused in a cheating case involving alleged property fraud, sought discharge from the trial court. The High Court rejected the plea, holding that factual issues require a full trial and prima facie material exists against the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits; the accused remains in the proceedings.

B.Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

/^)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 710 OF 2024

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the^judgment daled 8.11.2023 passed in Crl.tvl.P.No. 87 of 2021 in C.C.No. 468 of 2021 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Classcum-l Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Ramesh Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, N/o. H.No.HlG -79, Ankireddypalem, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, Presently R/o. Flat No-102, lndhra Prastha Apartment,^'t12, Siddharath Nagar, Guntur Town, Guntur District - A.P. Ao

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶13

Vemulapally Vakula Devi, Wio. Hemanth Kumar, Aged about 38 years, Occ.Business, R/o. Flat No,207, Block No.1, Sri Kalyan's RBR Complex, Miyapur, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 468 ot 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-l Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy,^pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶17

Gounsel for the Petitioner : Mr. C. Sharan Reddy

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. E. Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

, :y' ,/r

¶21

HONOURABLT SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUCTOPAL

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.71O of 2O24

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is frled to set aside the order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 87 of 2021 in C.C. No. 468 of 2027 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class-cum-l Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

¶25

Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, leamed counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The revision petitioner is the Accused No.6 in C.C. No. 468 of 2O2L on the file of learned Additiona-l Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-l Additiona-i Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The allegation against the revision petitioner/Accused No.6 is that A. 1 to A.3 in Cr.No.74/2020 under Sections 416, 42O,465, 468 rlw 34 IPC of P.S. Sangareddy Town in C.C. No. 468 of 2O2l have cheated the d.e facto complatnalt by impersonation and forged the photograph of original vendor in sale deed documents, on 10.01.2020 at Sub-Registrar Office, Sangareddy, wherein A. 1 to A.4 colluded with each other, created forged and

¶27

¶28

---:'-r -'

¶29

bogus document by impersonating the original vendor arrd later the said documents were transferred on the names of A.3 to A. 10 for causing heavy loss to the complainant and to^gain unlaufully.

¶30

During the pendency of the trial proceedings in C.C. No.468 of 2O2l the revision petitioner/A-6 filed Cr1.M.P. No.87 of 2O2l in C.C. No.468 of 2O2l before the trial Court with a prayer to discharge the petitioner from the proceedings in C.C. No. 468 of 2027 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that the same cannot be decided at this stage.

¶31

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-6 contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and seller of the property over which the 2"d respondent claims ownership. The petitioner has purchased the property from A-5, who in turn purchased the property from A-4 and that the^petitioner subsequently sold the property to third^parties, out of whom two are arrayed as A.7 and A.8. The entire tralsactions are made through registered sale deeds. The learned Judge erred in

¶32

¶33

holding that the allegations made^{against the petitionerare} triable issues and in^{fact no offence of cheating is made out} against the petitioner as there is no^{criminal intention on his} part to gain wrongfully by deceiving^{the propertyof2"d} respondent and even as^per the^{charge sheet, no forgery is} committed by the petitioner. I{ence^{prayedto discharge the} revision petitioner/Accused No.6^{from the said proceedingsin} C.C. No.648 of 2021.

¶34

Perused the entire record. Admittedly,^therevision petitioner/ Accused No.6 is involved in the^{sale transactions-} According to the learned counsel^{for therevision} petitioner/ Accused No.6 is a bana fde^{purchaser and seller of} the property having purchased the^{same from A-5, who in turn} purchased the property from A-4 and that^{the petitioner} subsequently sold the property^{to third parties, out of them, two} are arrayed as A-7 and A-8 in^{the present crime. Whetherthe} revision petitioner/ accused^{No.6 involved in the alleged offences} or not, cannot be adjudicated^{at the premature trial stage. In} order to prove the alleged offences against the^revision petitioner/ accused No.6 the prosecution has to adduce oral and documentary evidence, wherein the presence of the revision

¶35

I I

¶36

¶37

petitioner/Accused No.6 is essential to prove the case, especially when there is allegation against the petitioner that he had transferred the property in collusion with A. 1 to A.4. All these facts would come to light only after full-fledged trial. A bare perusal of the record shows that there is pima facie material against the revision petitioner/Accused No.6 in the present crime. Hence, at this stage discharge of the petitioner from the proceedings in C.C. No. 468 of 202L calnot be justifiable.

¶38

In view of the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal

¶40

petition, shall also stand closed.

¶41

Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-l Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

¶44

The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Town Police Station, Sangareddy District.

¶45

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

¶46

4 One CC to [\4r. C. Sharan Reddy Advocate [OPUC] t Two CD Copies

¶47

D Llg h

¶48

¶49

¶50

Il a

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611012024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.710 ol²⁰²⁴

$ 1 t{E Sl4 )5.
4i o
{1tl li
o)
01 i'im 2025
ttr ( L-) 5
.qrraTCfi

¶58

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL^{REVISION CASE.}

¶59

.B\x^

B.Ramesh Babu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramesh Babu v. The State of Telangana

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

M.Naresh Kumar Vs The State of A.P.

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

B.Shiva Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs State of a.P., and Another

M/S. Hdfc., Bank Ltd., Vs State of a.P., and Another

Regunta Bheem Rao, Adilabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.