Mohammad M. Khalid, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd and… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

Mohammad M. Khalid, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd and… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal petition disposed of without quashing Crime No.160 of 2014; no coercive-relief or quashing granted. Operative directions: Investigating Officer to follow Section 41-A CrPC 1973 / Section 35(3) BNSS 2023 procedure and Arnesh Kumar guidelines; petitioners may submit statements/reply with documents to the IO; miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the petition stand closed; observations confined to this case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Crime No.160 of 2014 (Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC, Habeebnagar Police Station) against accused Nos.1 to 3 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of process of law, the petitioners contending the allegations are purely civil in nature. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court found no ground to quash the proceedings in Crime No.160 of 2014 against accused Nos.1 to 3, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Ratio / Principle

Whether there was dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners in cancelling the GPA dated 20.01.2007, and whether Rs.1.68 crores was given to the petitioners by respondent No.2 towards their 40% share pursuant to that GPA, are disputed facts that have to be revealed during the course of investigation only.

Key takeaways

Mere pendency of civil cases is not a ground to seek quashing of the crime where the complaint alleges dishonest intention and mischief; since specific allegations of dishonest intention from inception were levelled against the petitioners, continuation of the criminal proceedings is not barred by the pending civil disputes.ratio¶89
The present case does not fall within the 'rarest of rare' ambit for exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners; such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate investigation.ratio¶100

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.), Crl.P.No.6378 of 2015, decided 18.11.2025. Petition under Section 482 CrPC by Mohammad M. Khalid, Shahnoor F.Hameed and Mohammad Saifuddin Farooq (Accused Nos.1-3) to quash Crime No.160 of 2014 of P.S. Habeebnagar, Hyderabad (Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC), registered on referral under Section 156(3) CrPC of de facto complainant Shaheen Hussain Khan's private complaint dated 25.06.2014 concerning a development agreement-cum-irrevocable GPA over house property Nos.11-3-849/1 to 5, New Mallepally, and the petitioners' cancellation of the GPA dated 20.01.2007. HELD: (i) the complaint contains specific allegations of dishonest intention from inception; whether dishonest intention attended the GPA cancellation and whether Rs.1.68 crores was paid towards the petitioners' 40% share are disputed facts to be revealed in investigation; (ii) mere pendency of civil cases (including CCA Nos.93 and 94 of 2007) is no ground to quash the crime, relying on Lal Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S., Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B., Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and S.V. Vijayarakshmi v. State of Karnataka; (iii) consistent with Neeharika Infrastructure and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the case is not 'rarest of rare' and interference at the investigation stage was unwarranted. Petition disposed of; Investigating Officer directed to follow Section 41-A CrPC 1973 / Section 35(3) BNSS 2023 procedure and Arnesh Kumar guidelines; petitioners entitled to submit statements/reply with documents to the IO; observations confined to this case; miscellaneous applications closed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Registration of Crime No.160 of 2014 by Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC, on referral by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of respondent No.2's private complaint dated 25.06.2014; these proceedings were sought to be quashed.¶58
Station House Officer, Habeebnagar Police Station, Hyderabad
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on 25.06.2014 before the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 204(?) r/w 34 IPC arising out of a development agreement-cum-GPA over house property Nos.11-3-849/1 to 5, New Mallepally.¶52
Prior proceeding
Interim stay of further proceedings in Crime No.160/2014 was passed in Crl.M.P.No.6291 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.6378 of 2015 on 14-07-2015; I.A. No.2 of 2015 (by respondent No.2) and I.A. No.1 of 2022 (by the State) sought vacation of that stay.¶43
Prior proceeding
Earlier complaint by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 led to registration of Crime No.66 of 2009 by Habeebnagar Police Station; the investigating officer filed a final report closing the complaint as civil in nature.¶65
Prior proceeding
After petitioner No.1's protest petition, the trial court took cognizance (summons in C.C. No.530 of 2012 as printed) and the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad convicted respondent No.2 under Section 420 IPC by judgment dated 22.01.2025.¶65
Prior proceeding
Both respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 filed criminal appeals before the learned Sessions Court against the conviction; the appeals are pending.¶68
Prior proceeding
Civil cases are pending between the petitioners and respondent No.2 before the competent civil court and also before this Court in CCA Nos.93 and 94 of 2007 (as printed).¶69
Prior proceeding
Questioning the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register sale deeds presented by respondent No.2 as GPA holder, respondent No.2 filed a writ petition (printed as W.P.No.20797 of 2010, OCR-garbled) which is pending before this Court.¶73