Urabavi Venkatanna Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

Urabavi Venkatanna Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No. 214 of 2024 of Maldakal Police Station, Jogulamba-Gadwal quashed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No. 214 of 2024 of Maldakal Police Station, Jogulamba-Gadwal, are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

As the agreement of sale was of 2007 and the complaint was lodged in 2024, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Ratio / Principle

There are no grounds to constitute the offence under Section 316(2) of BNS as there is no entrustment of property to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

To prove the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS the complainant must prove that from the inception the accused had the intention to cheat.ratio¶32
The petitioner entered into the agreement of sale and repeatedly said he would register the land, and panchayats were held before village elders; hence Section 318(4) of BNS does not attract to the averments in the complaint.ratio¶32
The averments in the complaint manifestly show only non-performance of contract, for which the party has to file a suit for specific performance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.528 BNSS allowed — proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2024 of P.S. Maldakal, Jogulamba-Gadwal (Ss.316(2), 318(4), 352 BNS) against Accused No.1 quashed. Complaint of 06-12-2024 arose from an agreement of sale of 2007 (Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.428) which the petitioner never got registered despite panchayats and repeated assurances. Held: (i) no entrustment of property to the petitioner, so S.316(2) BNS not attracted; (ii) S.318(4) BNS requires intention to cheat from inception — the assurances and panchayats before village elders negative it; (iii) averments manifestly show only non-performance of contract, the remedy being a suit for specific performance; (iv) a 2024 complaint over a 2007 transaction renders continuation of proceedings an abuse of process of law. Delhi Race Club v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, relied on by counsel for the proposition that there cannot be accusations of both criminal breach of trust under S.316(2) and cheating under S.318(4) BNS.

[³³⁸⁵ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16049 OF 2024

Between:

Urabavi Venkatanna, S/o. Dubanna, Aged aboul 37 years, Occ- Business, R/o Dasaripally village, Maldakal lvlandal, Jogulamba- Gadwal District

,..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

AND

The State of Telangana, Through Station House Officer. P.S. Maldakal, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at- Hyderabad

Pedda Narsimhulu Boya, S/o. Chinna Paguntanna, Aged- 37^years, casteBoya occ- farmer, Rio. Dasaripally village, ttilaldakal, Jogulamba-^gadwal. Mobile- 8106803909

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court^may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No. 1ⁱⁿ Crime No. 214 of 2024 dated O611212024 on the file of Police Station, Maldakal, J og u la mba-Gadwal.

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS,^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court^may be pleased to Stay the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.^1, including the arrest of the Petitioner/ Accused No. 1 in Crime No 214 of²⁰²⁴ daled 06.12.2O24 on the file of Police Station, Maldakal, Jogulamba- Gadwal, pending disposal of the criminal petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor^on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.16049^{0F 2024}

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under^{Section 528 of} Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha^{Sanhita,2023seekingto quash} the proceedings against the^{petitioner/ accusedin Crime No'214} of 2024 of Maldakal Police Station,^{Jogulamba-Gadwal'The} offences alleged against the^{petitioner are under Sections 318} (4), 316 (2) and under Section 352 of Bharatiya^{Nyaya Sanhita,} 2023.

The case of the prosecution^{is that thedefacto} complainant lodged a report before^{police on 06-12'2024 stating} that his parents purchased land^{to an extent of Ac'5'O0 in} Sy.No.428 from the^{petitioner herein and after six months he} registered the above land in the^{name of his motherNarsamma'} But after one month, they came^{to knor,r' that the said land u'as} already registered in the name^{of Budda Narsanna,as such,} when his parents asked the^{petitioner/accused about} registration of land, the accused^{statedthat he will soughtout} the issue, but he did not do so^{and draggedon the matterfor} years without registering the land.^{It isfurtherstated} panchayats were conducted before the^{vitlage elderswhcre, the}

2

petitioner said that he committed a mistake and he will register the land in the name of mother of defacto complainant. Further, when the defacto complainant asked him to register the land, the petitioner used filthy ianguage and also stated that he will not registe r the land. As such, requested the police to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint the police registcred I hc case against the petitioner for the above offences.

.-?. Ileard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for tire petitioner a nd learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I -State.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue pc rtains to land transaction of the year 2007. The defacto com plainant is not the aggrieved part5r. His parents entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment irr Delhi Race Club Vs State of U.p.r, u,herein, in para 27 it is observed that there cannot be accusations of both criminal breach of trust under Section 316 (21 ancl cheafing under Section 318 (4) of BNS; that there is no entrustment oi property by the victim to the accused. Therefore, the offence

'^{2024SCCOnlineSC2248}

3

nnder Section 316^{(2\ of BNSis not applicable to the petitioner'} To attract offence^{under Section 318 (4) of BNS there must be} intention to cheat^{from the beginningand it has to be shown} that property^{was dishonestly misappropriatedor converted to} the use. Hence,^{the sameis not attractedin this case' Further'} to attract the^{offence under Section 352 of BNS' intimidation} shallbetoCausedisturbancetothepublic.Inthcpresentcase, thematteriscivilinnatureandwithoutfilingthesuitfor specific performance,^{the defactocomplainantlodged a report} only to threaten^{the petitioner to settlethe civil scores' The} defactocomplainanthasnolocusstandiitolodgeacomplaint and there are^{not allegationsagainstthe petitioncr lo constitute} the alleged offences.^{Hence,prayed to quash the FIR registered} againsl the Pet^itioner.

5.Thoughnoticeisservedon2'drespondent'noneappeared on his behalf.^{The learnedAssistant Public Prosecutorwould} submitthatadmittedly,tlrereisadelayof16yearsinlodging the complaint.^{However, thecomplaint shou's thatas} panchayats were^{conductedwith regard to this issue' there was} delay in lodging^{the report. As the matter is at FIR stage' it} requires investigation,^{the proceedingscannotbe quashed'} Hence, prayed to^{dismiss this criminal petition'}

4

Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the alleged offences against the petitioner are under Section 316 (21, 31S (4) and 352 of BNS. The :rllcgations show that the said agreement was entered in the year 2oo7 but registration was not done in favour of parents of t hc defacto complainant and there is no information on record to shou, that that any suit is filed. According to learned counscl for the petitioner, no suit is Iiled for specific performanrx' of contract. Thc averments in the complaint manifestly show that it is only a non_performance of contract by the petitiorrcr,/:rccused for rvhich the party= iras to iiie suit for specific performance. There are no grounds to constitute the offences alregccl against the petitioner as there is no entrustment of property to him to constitute the offence under Section 316 (2) of BNS and to prove the offence under Section 318 (4) the cornplainant has to pi.ove that from the inception the accused has intention to cheat. The petitioner entered into agreement of sale and he repeatedly said that he will register the land. It is also seen that panchayats were held before the village elders, which shows that Section 3lg (4) does not attract to the averments in the complaint. Furthermore, as the alleged execution of agreement of sale is of the year 2OOZ and the

5

I

present complaint^{is lodged in the year 2O24' continuation of} nothing^{but abuse of} the Petitioner^is proceedings^against initiated^againstthe process of^{law and} the Proceedings petitioner^{is liable to be quashed'}

7 . Accordingly,^{the CriminalPetitionisallowed and the} proceedings^{against the petitioner in Crime No'214 of 2024 of} afe herebY Maldakal^{Police Station'Jogulamba-Gadwal} quashed.

Miscellaneouspetiiions'pending'ifany'shallstand

closed

D/. MOHD.^ISMAIL D UTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY/'

ECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Prl.^{Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal}

The Station^{House Officer, Maldakal Police Station' Jogulamba District'}

One CC^{to Sri. Baglekar Akash Kumar' Advocate[OPUC]}

Two^{CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

Two^{CD CoPies}

s''rt/sh ,/ 'b/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010412025

ORDER

CRLP.No.16049 of 2024

J R lHE S14
l-
!) 10JUil m
<br>'+
t Or-

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

g
I
,.
5
/