Disposed

Pathloth Seetharam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jun 2025CRLP/3890/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings for cheating and criminal intimidation arising from a disputed double sale agreement of agricultural land. The court held a full trial was warranted given 15 witnesses, declined to quash, but dispensed with personal appearance subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; personal appearance before trial court dispensed with until required, subject to affidavit; liberty to file discharge petitions.

Pathloth Seetharam Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3890 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

-1. Pathloth Seetharam, S/o.Pakeera, Aged about 36 years, Occ RTC.

¶9

Pathloth Hathiram, S/o.Pakeera, Aged about 38 years, Occ Agriculture,

¶10

Pathloth Srrnivas, S/o.Pakeera,Aged about 39 years, Occ Agriculture

¶11

Pathloth Gobriya, S/o.Pakeera, Aged about 65 years, Occ Agriculture,

¶12

Pathloth Madhu, S/o.Gobrrya, Aged about 30 years. Occ Agriculture,

¶13

Pathloth Pentu, Sio.Gobriya, Aged about 67 years, Occ Agriculture,

¶14

Pathloth Bojya, S/o.Pentu Aged about 44 years, Occ Agriculturey

¶15

Pathloth Shankar, S/o.Pentu, Aged about 40 years, Occ Driver,

¶16

Pathloth Bodya, S/o,Panthu, Aged about 46 years, Occ Labour,

¶17

Pathloth Sakru, S/o. Lalu, Aged about 62 years, Occ Agriculture ll.Pathloth Baddu, S/o.Shakru, Aged about 32 years, Occ Labour,

¶18

Pathloth Shankar, S/o.Shakru, Aged about 30 years, Occ Driver,

¶19

Pathloth Ramkoti, S/o.Brchya Aged about 35 years, Occlabour,

¶20

Pathloth Bheemla, S/o.Bheekya, Aged about 60 years, Occ Agriculture

¶21

'15. Pathloth tvladhu, S/o.Bheemla, Aged about 29 years, Occ Driver, 7

¶22

Pathloth Balu, Sio.Bheemla, Aged about 35 years, OccDriver,

¶23

Pathloth Praveen, S/o.Bheemla, Aged about 28 years, Occ Agriculture, All are resident of Ajina Thanda, Ma2efial Manclal, Ranga Reddy District

¶24

.,PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 to 17

¶25

AND

¶26

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

¶27

Smt.Nagaram Malathi, Wo.Chandrashekar, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.'101, Pirzadiguda, Boddupal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶29

.!-*d.6$,.,|,;,,

¶30

-7

¶31

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that n the circuhrstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition he High oourt may be pleased to call for the records relating to the C.C.21 1 of 2r)2O on ther file court of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate at ibrahimpatnam, Ra:r'rakonda and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2l 1 of 2O2O and pass.

¶32

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶33

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that rn the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition tne High c:ourt may be pleased to stay of alt further proceedings in c c.211 of 2,czo orithe file court of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate at lbrahimpatnam, Ra,;hakonda, pending disposal of the criminal petition and pass.

¶34

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing :lre N4emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petitron and upon hearing the argunrt:i ts of srr RApoLU BHASKAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri E Ganesh, tf e Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and non,: appearec for the Respondent No 2.

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶37

CRIMINAL PETITION No.389O OF 2O21

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The present criminal petition is filed br. the pe titionc rs/ acctrsed Nos.1 to 17 under Scction 482 r>f Cr.P.C., sceking to <:all lor the rccords relating to CC No.21 1 of 2O2O on thc filc of the learned XXVI Mctropolitan Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam, Rachakonda :rnd to qr-tash the criminal proceedings therein against rhe petituners.

¶40

Hcard Sri Udit Naral'eu-ra, lcar-ned counseI rcprescnting Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counscl lor thc pctitioners and Sri tr.Gancsh, learned Assistant Public Proseculor. Though noticc was ordered, none appeared for the respondent No.2.

¶41

FIR No.34 ol 2Ol9 dated I t).O3.2019 for the offenccs under Sections 42O, 506, 143 rcad u'ith Section 149 ol IPC was registered basing on the complaint clatcd ll.O2.2019 of thc 2"d respondent alleging that despite she entcring into an agrecment of sale on 10.02.2O 18 with Pathloth Ramkoti, Pathlorh Shikru, Pathlothbalu, Pathloth Bheemla, Pathloth Srinivas, Pathloth Hatiram, Pathloth Sitharam, Pathloth Madhu and Pathloth Soni for purchasc of total land admeasuring Ac.21.0O gts., in Sy.No.1246, situated at Arutla Revenue, the said persons havc also cntercd into another agreement of sale with one Maragori Masal,T/a Goud. I t is also allcged [hat on

¶42

¶43

l)lge 2 o[ 5

¶44

enquiries the 2r^(t respondent^came to^{knorv thr'I lllh oncunlbrancc} certificatcs thz,t thc^{said land was alread). registcr('(- in thc ttanreo[} Talln SriniVns Grtr-Ld. Kallerrn^{Bikshapathi:tnd V:llltrriilRitrncslL(ioud.} ln tot:il shc piricl :t cousiderirLion^{of Rs.43,00,O007 out of totitl sale} consideratioll ol I1s.53,55,000/-^{to the said Patl'r o:h l?amkotiand} otl.lors. ln this rcgard on^{13.11.2018at 13.50 horr-s rt l-tt'tr sh(r along} rvith hcr ircn,,vcnt to Government^{School,Ajina1'rlllcLatrl cliscussthe} matter, tht: zLcr:uscd lormcd^{intomassive unla[-ful I \ieml)lv atld triecl} to ilttack thcm an<i threatened Lhcm^{u'ith dire cotts'-'' Llen('cs aild thilt} ciur: to feitr shr: rtlotrg rvith her men^{escaped from t'llLt plltt:eI3ltsing} on the abot'e itrforrnittion, LW14^{registeredcrime :trl ithe ttlvestigzrtioLr} \,as conducted ancl concludcd try LW15,^{who laid chi|gesheet against} thc irccuscd.

¶45

Qtrcstioning^{their array asaccuscrltlLhe c:t-irnitral} pro('eedings, tlrt: ltetitioncrs herein^{filed the pres(l11 :rinlirl.rl pctition} contending thirt lllcv havc not^{committed any offtrll(l-- nluch lcss lhc} allcgecl offenccs, the 2"d respondent^{paid ol'rh anelm.'Llllt oI} Rs. I8,OO.O0O/ irt the time of entering into^{agrectn|rtland a53'ccdto} pa1, the balance sale consideration within 90 days bt^{ul tcrll' larlcclt-cr} pa1, the same as agreed and several approaches ol^:re llcliticners^tn this rcgard ',vent^{irt vain} and hence, upon^{after of a} lrccd^{peric'clof 90} da1,s, to meet^t hcir dire exigency, the^{petitioners sok I} -hc l)rope^{rty to a}

¶46

I)age 3 ol5

¶47

third part5r. Further, the 2"d respondent ought to have approached competent civil Court secking spccific pcrformancc of aqrcemerlt of salc instcad of initiating cnminal proceedings. Thc petitroncrs had no inlention either to cheat or intimidate thc 2n(t rcspondent. The allcgations are cooked up only for the prcst:nt casc r(ithorrt there bcing any prima-facie material [o direct the pe tit ioners /:rccused to face the tribulations of trial.

¶48

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Proscuutor would submit that upon finding prima facic matcrial against the pctit ioncrs / accused, the responden t/ police proceccled rvith invcsliga[ion and they have examined 15 u,itnesses and basing on the rcvclations made by the listed u,iLnesses, the investigating officer laid chargc-sheet and the allegations levelled therein and the revelations madc by the lgitnesses have to be tcsted on the touchslonc o[ thc trial and u,iLhout such exercise the petitioncrs cannot be declared as innocents at the threshold.

¶49

Having heard the respective lcarned counsel iurd perusing the material on record this Court is of the considered vicu, that the matter requires full-fledged trial sincc as many as 15 rvitnesses have deposed in support of the prosecution casc and Lhat the gcnuineness or otherwise of the same has to be decided on thc strcngth of trial. At .1 -,^fris .luncture,^{it i$-apt Lo mentionhereinthat the Hon'bleSupreme -}

¶50

I'age 4 of 5

¶51

' ''',.i' .

¶52

Corrrt has rei-crated thc settled principles of lau r,; laid^dorvn in^a nurnbcr of^judgrnr:nts. including M/s.Neeharika^{I n frastructure (Pl}

¶53

Ltd.. Vs. State of Maharashtra and othersl^I rat thc 1,ou'er^of clrrr shini:, shcrtlrl bc r:xcrciserl^{sparinglyrt'ithcirct tt'rspectitln,in thc} rrrrcst o1' rare^(':rses r,tt-td thirt the Court catlnot mbark^{u pon zrn} encluiry as to the rcliabilitv or genuinencss or^othcrlise of^the allcq:rtions madc in thc complaint, the criminal^{prr)(,cclingsor.tght not} to be scuttlcd al the initial stage, quashing of a conr^{laint,/FIf.should} bc an cxt'eptioLr attd raritl, tl'r:ln an ordinary rule , or, iirrartll' thtr Courts arc barrcd lrorn usurpir-tg lhe^jurisdiction of the po^rr t:. Iltxvever,^Lltt-' inherent pont-^- of thc Court is recognized to securc llL(t erds ol^justicc or prevent ablrsr: of process nnder Section 482 Cr .l' C., and^t.hat ttre p<rn'er trnder Si'ction 482 of Cr.P.C. is very wide, lr tt coulerrnent of u iclc polr,cr reclrLircs Lire Court to be cautious. It casl- art oncritus :tt-Lcl morc cliligent dr rly or-r thc Court.

¶54

7 . Wlrcn thc lacts o[ the case on hand r rc te sLcd on Lhe [ouchst()n() of t]'re proposition of larv laid down in t rr above decision, this Cotrrt is oI the considered vieu, that this is not r fit czrsc to^quash thc impugned proceedings, as sought for, sin,'L therc are lto compelling circulnstances lvarranting interference of^IIris Court

c0l0) l0 s('( r80

,1'',{lM@P7

Pagc 5 ol-5

Hou,ever, as sought by the learncd counscl for thc I petitionr:rs, thc appearance of thc' petitioners belorc thc tri:rl CourL in conrrection ^ ith CC No.21 1 of 2O2O on thc filc of Lhe learned XXVI Metropolitzrn Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam, Retchakonda is dispcnsed rvith until and unless thc same is requircd. The petrtioncrs shall appear before the trial Court either in person or through their learned counsel r,r,hcnever the presence of the petitioncrs is sought ibr trl thc trial Court. The petitioners shall lile an afhdavit before thc trizrl Court to this elTcct. Failure of the petitioners in complying u,ith the above said condition, the relief granted hcrcin stulrds :rltto m a ticall5.' cancelled. The petitioners are at liberty to u,ork out the rcmedies as availablc under law including hling of discharge petitions belore the trial Court, if they desire. The trial Court, upon filing such pctiLions by the petitioners, shali dispose of the same on meriLs ri'ithout bcing influenced by this order.

¶59

L ln the result, the criminal pctition is disposecl ol n,ith the above drrections. Interlocutory applications, if an_r,, stand disn-risscd.

¶60

,/TRUE^COPY// TION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62