Allowed

Kandadi Bal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Sept 2025CRLP/6458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Petition quashing proceedings against accused Nos. 2, 5, and 6 in CC No. 490 of 2021. The Court held that since allegations of conspiracy and forgery were leveled exclusively against Accused No. 1, the ingredients for offences under the IPC did not attract against the petitioners, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 490 of 2021 against petitioners/Accused No. 2, 5, and 6 in CCI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad are quashed.

Kandadi Bal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l32s4l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6458 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Bala Krishna Reddy, Sio. Sathireddy, age: 60 years, Occ:Business, R:/o. H.No.1-6, Rampally Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal, lt/edchal, lValkajgiri District.

¶9

Kandadi Srikanth Reddy, S/o. K.Bal Reddy, Age: 40 Years Occ: Business. Fl/o.H.No. 1 -6, Rampally Dayara Village, Keesara lt/andal tt4edchal, ttilalkajgiri District.

¶10

Gaddam Ram [Vlohan Rao, S/o G.Venkataiah, Proprietor of tV/s GIVR Stone crusher, Age: 44 Years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Plot No.595 & 596 of Gaddam Residency Near YSR Statue, Ayyappa Socity, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused No.A2, A5 and AG

¶12

AND

¶13

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad Through Women Police Station Vikarabad.

¶14

Smt D.V.Neeraja W/o. Upender aged 41 year Occ House wife Rl/o.H.No.3262 Near Government School Old Village lvlallapur Uppal [Vledchal Ranga Reddy Diskicit.

¶15

..Respondents

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC.No.490 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional Metropolitan magistrate, Cyberabad at malkajgiri Rangareddy District against the petitioners/Accused No.2, 5,6.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all and further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.2,5 and 6 in CC.No.490 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional Metropolitan Maistrate Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate representing Sri Police Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

TIIE TTON'EBLE SFTT JT.ISTICE J.SF'EENTVAS TTAO CRIMrNAL PETITION No.6458 of 2o23

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal petition tras been filed r. nder Section 482 of the Code of Crirninal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'cr'P C'') by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2, 5 and 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.49O of 2O2l on the frle of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Merlkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences punishable r.nder Sections 42O, 467, 46a, 47I, 424, 5Cl6, t2o(b) of the rndian penal Code, 1860 (for short .IpCJ and Section 156(3) of the Cocle of Criminal procedure, l9Z3 (for short .CrpC,).

¶24

Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, Iearned counsel for the petitioners, Sri p.Vrjay Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri police Venkat Reddy, learned cot.nsel for respondent No.2 ald Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistarrt public prosecutor, appearing ibr respondent No.1-State.

¶25

¶26

3. Brief facts of^{the case:}

¶27

3.1. The complainant's^{uncle,namelyD V Yadagiri, purchased} land to an^{extent of Ac 1.00 in Sy No'i81/A of Kundhanpally} Village from M.^{Sathyanarayana,under aGeneralPowerof} Attorney, uide^{Document No'5078 of 2012 dated17 'O4'2O12'} Subsequently, on^{30.03.2013, the complainantpurchasedthe} same land from^{D.V. Yadagiri, uide Document No'2103/2013'} Accused No.l,^{rvho is the son of Sathyanarayana, wascitcd as a} rvitness. Since lhen,^{the complainant has beetl inphysical} possession of the saicl^{land, and his name was alsomutatedin the} revenue records,^{and a passbook was issuedin his favour'}

¶28

3.2 It is lurther^{averredthat in 2015, the said Sathyanarayana's} son, Prabhakar, filed^{O.S. No.1040 of 2015 before the District} Judge, Ranga Red<ly^{Districtat L.B.Nagar, seekingcancellation of} the sale deed^{and perpetual injunction, by forging the signalureof} his father, in collusion^{with accusedNos'2 to 6, rvith an intention} to grab the^{propcrty.While accused No.S and others were erecting} stone pillars with^{fencingwire on the complainant'splot,the} complainant's^{husband went there upon learning of the same'At} that time, accused^{No.5 demanded Rs.10 lakhs, failing which}

¶29

accused No.1 would again^{file a case.}

¶30

' *r(i:: *a ...7 .rra.'r..,, ,r{t., tl -|. -.. .> -^--. "t{ -. . /

¶31

3.3 It is also averred that on ll.O7.2olg, the said suit was dismissed, subsequently an appeal was preferred by accused No.1 and the same is pending. Meanwhile, the complainant applied for Rythu Bandhu and a patta passbook, but accused Nos. 1 to 6 opposed the same and threatened the complainant and her husband. At the same time, accused No.l got the civil case reopened by impleading his mother. He forged signatures and filed a case to resist the complainant,s claim and to grab the property. Further, accused No.1 obtained a passbook for Ac.2.l4 guntas instead of Ac.2.OO guntas, for his itlegal gain and to causc monetary loss to the complainant. Thus, accused Nos.l to 6 are Iiable for the offences mentioned above.

¶32

4 Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners:

¶33

4.7 Learned counsel subrnitted that the petitioners have not cornrnitted any offence and they were falsely irnplicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the cornplaint, respondent No.2 had purchased the property to an extent of Ac. 1_OO in Sy.No.LaL/ A through registered sa_le deed dated 30.03.2013 frorn her father-in-law namely D.V.yadagiri, who is the registered GPA holder of original owner narnely M.Sattryanarayana. Accused No.l, who is none other

¶34

.--
\ .'.n rr.i._ . f . -{ j
,, ;,.i-'-t. -"*1

¶35

¶36

than the son of M. Sathyanarayarra, forged the signatures of his father and liled suit in O.S. No.1O4O of 2O15 seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 3O.O3.2O 13 in colh'rsion with the petitioners. The entire allegations are levelled against accused No. 1 only. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 42O, 467, 468, 477, 474, 106, and 120B IPC, as well as Section 156(3) CrPC, are not attracted against the petitioners-

¶37

4.2 He lurther subrnrtted that M. Sathyanarayana filed suit on 23.O9.2015 and he died on 1O.O4.2O18. Respondent No.2 filed a private cornplaint on 05.08.2019 after a lapse of nearly forlr years frorn the date of institution of thc suit without assigning any reason for the delay. Learned Magistrate without examining the allegations rnade in thc complaint sirnply referred the matter to the police and based on the sarne, Crirne No.386 of 2Ol9 was registered and the Investigating Officer without properly conducting the investigation filed a charge sheet and the learned Magistrate without exarnining tkre sarrre, took cognizance and numbered as C.C. No. 49O of 2021 . The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of

¶38

¶39

process of law

¶40

Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

¶41

E,I Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted ihat accused No.1 in collusion with the petitioners filed suit in the narne of M.Sathyanarayana by forging the signature of his father and there are specilic allegations against the petitioners in the complaint. The witnesses also in their staternents specifically mentioned the role of the petitioners. Tkre grounds which are raised by the petitioners have to be adjudicated during the collrse of triai. Based on the same, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for quashing the proceedings.

¶42

Subrnissions of learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No. 1:

¶43

6 .7 Learned Assistalt public prosecutor has reiterated the submissions rnade by the learned counsel for respondcnt No.2.

¶44

Analysis:

¶45

Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective parties and after pe^rsa1 of the material

¶46

¶47

-.^{'f".{$li#'-r}} \ ;:i,.^t=:tt

¶48

\ '..' '
<br>

¶49

available on^{record, itrevealst}- atrespondentNo'2} clairning that^{she had purchasedthe property to an extent} of Ac.1 OO in^Sy.No.18i /A^{situated atKundhanpally} Village, Kcesara^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy district(presently} Medchal Malkajgiri^{District) through registered saie deed'} d.ocurnent bearing^{No.2103 ol 2073,dated3O'O3'2O13} said to have been^{executed by her father-in-Iawnarnely} D.V.Yadagiri,^{who is aregisteredGeneral Powerof} Attorney holder^{of Mr'M.Sathyanarayana on 30'O3'2013'}

¶50

The record discloscs^thatM '^{Sathyanarayana} filed suit in^{O. S . No. 1O4O of20 I 5before theDistrict} Judge, Ranga^{Reddy District at L B'Nagaron 23'O9 2015} seeking cancellation^{of theregisteredsale deed bearing} No.21O3 of 2013,^dated3O'O3 '2013^{of respondentNo'2} and to declare^{the above rnentioned registeredsa-ie deed is} not bind.ing^{r-rpon hirn and to direct the defendants therein} to pay the sale^{considerationof Rs'29,O4,OOO/- together} with interest and^{also other reliefs'}

¶51

g. Respondent^{No.2 filedprivatecomplainton} O5.Oa.2O 19 after^{lapse of more than four years frorn the} date of institution^{of the sr-rit alleging that accr,rsed No'l}

¶52

¶53

-ffi ' rv- € '{'.?' . 1i.r_...?.r

¶54

: .,1

¶55

forged the signature of his father and filed a suit in O.S.No.1O4O of 2015 in collusion with the petitioners with an intention to cause loss to her and also for wrongfui gain. After perr.sal of the complaint and the charge sheet, it reveals that the only allegation levelied against the petitioners is that the petitioners a-lso colluded with accused No.1. Except the above said allegation, there are no other allegations levelled against the petitioners.

¶56

It is already stated suF)ra, that entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of Sections 42O,467,468,42I,424,506, and 120_8 IpC do not attract against the petitioners. Hence the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.4 90 of 2O2l is clear abuse of process of law

¶57

For the foregoing reasons, ttre crirnina-l petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.49O of 2O2l on the file of the XVI Additionai Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Matkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. It is made crear that any of the observations rnade in this order are only

¶58

¶59

confined for^{the purpose of deciding this case'}

¶60

As a sequel^{thereto, miscellaneous applications} '

¶61

if any, pending^{in this pctition stand closed'}

¶62

Sd/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The xvll^{Additionaltvletropolitan lvlagistratecyberabadat tMalkajgiri'}

¶68

Z. fn" Stution^{HouseOfficei, KeesaraPolice Station} .Rachakonda'

¶69

5 f*i CC.^{to th" Public Prosecutor,High Court for the State of Telanganaat}

¶70

Hyderabad [OUT]

¶71

a. One CC^{to Sri T.V RamanaRao, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶72

O;" CC^{to Sri PoliceVenkat Reddy, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶73

¶74

Two CD^CoPies

NVB/kam

HIGH^COURT

DATED;2210912025

L
c:i
6
LL
l-

ORDER

CRLP.No.6458^o12023

ALLOWING^{THE CRIMINAL PETITION}

¶82

<br>"t(
\ct

Kandadi Bal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandadi Bal Reddy 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

R.Sudheer Vs The State of Telangana

Aishwarya Reddy Toom Vs The State of Telangana

Syeda Aijaz Fathima Vs The State of Telangana

S.Padmakara Rao, Vs Station House officer

Mohd. Habeebuddin and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Girjesh Joshi Vs The State of Telangana