Allowed

S. Shekar, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC13 Oct 2025WP/33811/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR No. 234 of 2016 against the petitioner (Accused No. 3) who acted as a mediator in a property dispute. Relying on a prior order quashing proceedings against Accused No. 2 in the same matter, the Court held that the allegations were civil in nature and continued proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashal of proceedings in FIR No. 234 of 2016 and closure of pending miscellaneous petitions.

S. Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t I

¶2

[³³⁰³ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TW-ENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 33811 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

9.^{Shekar, S/o. Late lstari,} aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture. R/o Porandta Viilage, Mahesnwaia rn"vinoii nrng"'REbiv

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telanoana rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Secreta riat, Hydera ba"d.

¶13

2 The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram p.S., Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

J Mr. Sattaiah Golusula. S/o Kishlaiah, aged 27 years, Occ Agriculture, Fyo. Pora nd I a Vi tta ge, tVla h es fr*a ram trrta no a[ "{Jn g-, f, EEo"i o irtri"t.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or Direction, particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the 2nd Respondent in registering the F'l R.No. 234 o{ 2016 for the offences under sections 41g,420,447, so6 r.p.c., under section 4 of the A. p.Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, 1988 and under section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, arraigning the petitioner as Accused No. 3, as arbitrary, illegal being a counter blast to the crime registered in F.l.R.No.496 of 2016 for the offences under sections 384, 506 read with section 34 of r.p.c., of Malkajgiri P.S., and consequen,y quash the F.l.R.No. 234 of 2016, since it is violative of Articres 14 and 21 of the constitution of rndia, in the interest of justice.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 41712OF 2016)

¶18

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto grant stay of all further proceedings including -appearance of the Petitionerⁱⁿ Crime/F.l.R.No. 234 of 2016 on the file of the Station^{House Officer,} I\rlaheshwaram P.S., Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, in the.interest of^justice.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 53 OF 2017)

¶20

Between:

¶21

Mr. Sattaiah Golusula, S/o. Kishtaiah, aged 27^years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT No.3

¶23

AND

¶24

1 S. Shekar, S/o. Late Istari, aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER

¶26

2 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶27

2 The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No.1 & 2

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Cou( may be^pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29-09-2016 granted in W.P.M.P. No. 41712 of 20'16 in W.P.No.3381 1 of 2016.

¶30

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(V{V MP. NO: 1176 OF 20171

¶31

Between:

¶32

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶33

The Station House Officer, lvlaheshwaram Ranga Reddy District.

¶34

...PETITIONERS

¶35

AND

¶36

1 S. Shekar, S/o. Late lstari, aged about 32 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶37

2 [Mr. Sattaiah Golusula, S/o Kishtaiah, aged 27 years, Occ Agriculture, Rj/o. Pora nd I a Vi I I a ge, M a heshwa ra m l,ti"..j, L "n*g, (Eio"v oi.tri"t. (R2 is not necessary party to this petition)

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed interim orders passed in wpMp.No.4 1712 oI 2O16 in WP.No.3381 1 of 2016 dated 20.9.20.16.

¶40

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRt K.RAMA KR|SHNA, REp. FOR SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: AGp FOR HOME

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KILARU KHADER BABA

¶43

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶44

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO} WRIT PETITTON NO.3 38^{11 0F 2016}

¶45

ORDBR..

¶46

This writ petition^{has been liled seeking to quashthe} proceedings in FIR^{No. 234 of 2016 on the file of P'S' Maheshwaram'} Ranga Reddy^{District, whereinthe petitioner has been arrayedas} accused No.3,^{for offences punishabteunder Sections 419,420,447'} and 506 ofthe^{lndianPenal Code, 1860 (lor short'IPC');Section 4 of} the A.P. Land^{Grabbing(Prohibition) Act, 1988; and Section25(1-B)} of the Arms Act,^1959.

¶47

When this matter was^{taken up for hearing on l0'102025, Sri} K. Rama Krishna,^{leamed counsel representirlg Sri P' Lakshma} Reddy, leamerl^{counselfor the petitioner,submittedthat the issue} raised in this^{writ petition is squarely coveredby the order passed bv} this Court in W.P.^{No. 3281 8 of 2016,dated22-09} '2025,^{wherein this} Court allowed^{the writ petition and quashedthe proceedingsin Crime} No. 234 of^{2016 against the petitioner therein,whowas amayed as} accused No. 2. In the^{present writ petition, the petitioneris arrayed as} accused No. 3^{in the very same crime. Hence, the petitioneris also} entitled to the same^{relief as granted by this Courtin} W.P. No. 328 l8 of 2016. dated22.09.2025-

¶48

.-r \'-,r

¶49

..r.. . .l_. .

¶50

On 10.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No. 3, and the matter was adjourned to today under the caption 'For Orders'. In spite of the matter being listed under the caption 'For Orders', today also there is no representation trn behalf of respondent No. 3 either in physical mode or virtual mode. This Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he acted as a mediator between the de facto complainant and accused No. 2, and this Court has already quashed the crime insofar as accused No. 2 is concemed, against whom the major allegations were levelled. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint is purely civil in nature.

¶52

Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home has not disputed the quashing of the crime insofar as accused No. 2 in W.P. No. 32818 of 2016 is concemed. However, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients under the Arms Act. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation,

¶53

¶54

and the^{petitioner is not entitled to seekquashing of the proceedings}

¶55

at this stage

¶56

Having^{considered the rival submissions made by the} respective^{pafl.ies and afterperusalof the material available on record'} it rer"cals^{that accused No'2 is claiming rights ovcr the property} admeasuring.Ac.t4-30^{guntas in Sy' No 17 and Ac'5-35guntas in Sy'} No.l8,^{situatedat Porandla Viliage' MaheshwaramMandal'Ranga} Re<ldy^{District, through a rcgistered SaleDeed bearingDocument} No.1809^{ol 2011, dated 13 05'20llSubsequently'he sotd the said} propefty^{in favour of Sri B' Ravi Teja by way of a registered} documeut^{bearing No 353 of 20 t2' dated02 02'2012''l he petitioner} herein^{acted as a mediator between the de facto complainantand} accused^{No.2'The record flrrtherreveals that respondent No'3} loclged^{a cornplaintagainst the petitionerand 5 othcrs on 17 09'20 l6'} Aftcr^{perr.rsalof the complaint'it is apparent that respondent No'3} requested^{rcspondentNo'2 to takeactionagainst the petitioner and 5} others^{fbr non-paymentof balancesale consideration and to cancel} thc registeled^{Sale Deed bearing DocumentNo'353 ol 2012'dated} 02.02.20t2

¶57

Admittedly^{the nature of the allegationsniade by respondent} No.3 in^{the complaint is purely civil in nature' Even according to the} complaint^{if any amounts are due by accusedNo.2' respondent No'3}

¶58

¶59

::4::

¶60

ought 1rl have approachcd the competcnt Civil Court by filing^a comprehensive suit seeking canceilation ol the registered sale deeds dated 13.05.201I and 02.02.2012 respectively. On the other hand, file d criminal complaint.

¶61

lt is very much relevant to mention that that this Courl^allowed W.P. No. 32818 of 2016 and quashed the proceedings^{againstaccuscd} No.2, against whom, the major eillegations^were levellcd.^{In the} Lrresent^{case, the only allegationagainst the petitioner is that he actcd} as a mediator between the de facto complainant^{andaccused No.2.}

¶62

Hence. this Court is of the considered^{view that continuation of the}

¶63

proceedings against the petitioner is clear^{abuse of the processof law.}

¶64

For the foregoing reasons,^{thc writ petitionis allowed and the}

¶65

proceedings in FIR No.²³⁴ of²⁰¹ 6^{on the file of Maheshwaram} I'olice Station against^{the petitioner/accusedNo.3, is herebyquashed.}

¶66

No costs.

¶67

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions,^{pending if any, stand}

¶68

closed.

¶69

That Rule Nisi has^{madeAbsoluteas above witness} rne uon''uiJ'sRi apanesn^{KUMARslNGH, The Ghief Justiceon this} fvf onA"V, ifre Thirteenth^{Day of October, Two Thousandand Twenty Five'}

¶70

//TRUE COPY//

¶71

S .P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER

¶72

To, 1 . The Secretary,^{Department of Home,Secreta} Hyderabad, State^of Telangana.

¶73

The Station House Officer, lVlaheshwaram Ranga Reddy District_ 3. One CC to SRt P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRt KTLARU KHADER BABA, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶74

Two CD Copies BSR ,ltv BS .-/.

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1311012025

'! \

ORDER

WP.No.33811 of 2016

,q-rtr4' iE q iA
<br>-v
C\ 1':
t-) 1 5 l]ti ?[?5
-i.
. _i- /
i. .,,'i'
-,":-i,l'
:'

¶82

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶83

WITHOUT COSTS

¶84

0^ 1
lo #
\5

S. Shekar, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Shekar, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary

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

A. Ravichander Goud Vs Sri E.V. Narasimha Reddy, I.A.S.

Raziya Sultana Vs The State of Telangana

Nalla Jai Shanker Goud Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Miryala (Nerellakunta) Atchutha Rao Vs Banoth Sunitha

K.Sangayya Math Vs State of Telangana

M/s Versatile Pharma Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others