Polavarapu Sridevi Vs The State of Telangana

2 Ashish Kr:mar Ahuja, Wo Sunil Kumar Ahuja Aged about^{30 Yrs, Occ} Business R/o H No 8-2 293l\2lHl26, Plot^No 26, Shaikpet,^{HUDA Heights,} Banjara Hills' Hyderaba

¶16

..RES'.NDENT/..M'LA'NANT

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition,^{the High Court maybe} pleased to quash the petitroner/accused No.'1 & 2 in Crime No.666^{of 2025 on e} file of Jubilee Hills Police Statton, Hyderabad-

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay be} pleased to sTAY of all further proceedings including the arrest of^{the petitioners/} accused No.1 & 2 in Crrme No.666 of 2025^{on the file of JubileeHills Police} Station , Hyderabad.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinil the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argum: rls of Sri lvl.pRATAp SINGH, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao \ e:eramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and tl i Bala lVlohan Reddy Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO 15071 0F 2025

¶22

Between:

¶23

Polavarapl Sr devi, D/o Late Rama Krishna Rao A,l,: I about- 56 Yrs, OccBusiness R/o H. No.B-2-2931821N321-A,24, Jubilee Hrl s Hyderabad, T.S

¶24

Smt. Varalaxmr Polavarapu, W/o Late Rarnakrishna fl I r Aged about- 75 Yrs, Occ- Housewrfe R/o H No.B-2-293t821A1321-A-24. J _t't rr:e l-lills, Hyderabad, T.S...PETITIONET /ACCUSED No.I & 2

¶25

AND

¶26

.1 . The State of Ielangana, Rep. by its Publrc prosecutor I r ;h Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana.

¶27

Ashish Kumar Ahu.ja. Wo Sunrl Kumar Ahuja Aqed abr i t 30 Yrs, fccBusrness R/o H N6.8 2-z93t8ztHtz6,^ptot Nb 26: Shai{ ) :1, HLJDA lleights, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶28

.,.RESPONI] :NT/COMPLAINANT

¶29

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that i r the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitrc,r . lhe High Court may be pleased to quash the petitioner/accused No.1 and 2 in Cr r rt-. No.686 ol 2025 on the file of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶30

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶31

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stateci in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition tr ; Hiqh court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings rncluding the a-r. rt of the petitioners/ accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.686 of 2025 on the file ,r Jubrlee Hills police Station, Hyderabad.

¶32

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume-:; of Sri rvl.pRATAp slNGH, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Vr eramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and S - Ilala Mohan Reddy Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶33

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

----a-,

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶36

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶37

CRIMINAL PETITION N os.15039 AND 15071 0F 2025

¶38

DATE:08-01-2026

¶39

Between

¶40

Polavarapu Sridevr and another

¶41

Petitioners

¶42

And

¶43

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another

¶44

Respondents

¶45

COMMON ORDER

¶46

Crl.P.No.15039 ot 2025 is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos,l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedrngs against them in Crime No 666 of 2025 of Jubitee Hills Potice Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 329(4), 324(2) and 336(3) read with 3(5) BNS

¶47

Crl P.No.1507 1 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners-accused

¶48

Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.686 ot 2025 of Jubitee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad,

¶49

a

¶50

2 ETD.J ('rl ' i) 15039oi2t25&batch

¶51

registered for the offences under Sections 1 18(1 ,, 126(2), 351(2) and 309(4) read with 3(5) of BNS.

¶52

Heard Sri M. Pratap Singh, learned , ounsel for the petitioners. Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, e i rned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent l'r ."|-State and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for res tondent No.2.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners sut nritted that the matter is purely civil in nature. Responden No.2-de f acto complainant alleges that the subject property be I r,.1g5 to hrm but the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers. ,tf the subject property. Therefore, the allegations made t 1 the de facto complainant are utterly false. He further submitte I that, in case, if the de facto complainant has any grievance, he r; rrr approach the civil Court, but he filed the present complaints vrith an ulterior motive. He, therefore, prayed to quash the pr: ;eedings in the present crimes against the petitioners herein

¶54

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner No.'l is the vendor and petitioner I'1,,.2 stood as a witness to the Sale Deed executed by petitioner. h o.1 in favour of father of lhe de facto complainant. However, suk. r e,quenfly, a Gift

¶55

J I- I t).J Crl.t'.No. I5019 of 2025 & batch

¶56

-rr,

¶57

Deed is executed by^petitioner No.1 in favour of^petitioner No.2 herein in the year 2025. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions

¶58

6 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to^pass appropriate orders in the Criminal Petitions

¶59

7. Perused the record

¶60

8 The Criminal Petitions are filed challenging two crimes registered against the petrtioners herein. Crime No.666 of 2025, dated 30.10.2025, is registered against the^petitioners for the offences under Sections 329(4), 324(2) and 336(3)^{read with3(5)} BNS. ln the said crime, it is alleged that the father of de facto complainant has purchased a house bearing H.No.B-22931821N3211tu24, situated at Road No 25, Jubilee^Hills,vlde registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2246 of 2009, daled 20.07.2009, from one Mrs P. Sreedevi^(petitioner No.1) Subsequently, Mrs. P. Sreedevi has created a fraudulent^Gift Deed in favour of her mother i.e., P. Varalaxmi^(petitioner No.2), who is also a witness to the above Sale Deed executed in favour of the father of the de facfo complainant, and tried to kespass^and damage the subject property. Thus, the de facto complainant

¶61

4 ETD..I C l ' r'r.15 )l9ol l()15&balclr

¶62

filed a complaint before the Jubilee Hills polic: iStation and the same was registered as Crime No.666 of 2025 nd investigated Subsequently, another attempt was made by tir : petitioners that on 09.112025 at about 16:00 hours, whrr the det facto complainant along with his friend visited the suo t c;t property, they were threatened by one Sagar, Big TV repc r .t:r. and in due course, the petitioners along with their henr,l rnen wrongfully confined the de faclo complainant and his f ir:nd inside the subject property and threatened the de facto crr t clainant to give up the claim over the subject property and wh()r he tried to dial 100, they snatched away the phone. lt is ; lleged that the accused confined the de f acto complainant arr, his friend and attacked them with rods, knives and other obji:,:, ; Thus, the de faclo complainant filed another complaint anrl 'he same was registered as Crime No.686 of 2025 of JuLi e e Hrlls Pohce Station, for the offences under Sections 118('1 ) 126(2), 351(2) and 309(4) read with 3(5) BNS. Thus, prima fac.i , allegations are pointed out against the petitioners herein. The c : ntention of the petitioners' counsel is that there are two crimes r lgistered based on the same set of allegations and hence, cor tinuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is not just anrl p,roper.

¶63

5 LTD.J Crl.P.No. 15019 of 2025 & balch

¶64

l \

¶65

t^

¶66

ln T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Othersl, the

¶67

Honourable Apex Court dealt with a case, wherein it was held that

¶68

"ln respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence two FlRs had been lodged and held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence^giving rtse to one or more cognizable offences."

¶69

ln Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat2, the Honourable Apex Court held that:

¶70

"The Court has to examine the facts and circumstances^giving rise to both the FlRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FlRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence, or are in regard to the incidents^{which are} two or more parts of the same transaction and that^tf the answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.''

¶71

ln the present case, a perusal of the record discloses that both the crimes are regtstered based on different set^of allegations. While the case in Crime^{No.666 of 2025 is under} investigation, the petitioners have resorted^{to another crimeand}

\

' lzoor;^{o scc ror}

'^{(zoto)tz scc 254}

6 El t)..1 Cr ( . l5(rl9 ol l(ll i & hil.h

¶76

,

¶77

beat the de facto complainant and his frienc tnd iscriminately-

¶78

Thus, it cannot be termed as multiple F.l.Rs be i){l registered on the same set of allegations. When the test r, sameness is applred, the same is answered in the negative.^- fre investigation is still in progress. As a part of investigation, -e police could collect the injury certificate. lt is not just and prc F E,r to scutile the investrgation at this stage. The allegatrons point )L.lt the offences of serious nature. Therefore, the proceeding; n the present crimes cannot be quashed. The Criminal petitic;r I ack merit

¶79

Accordingly, both the Criminal petitions are lismissed

¶80

lVliscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, sh a I stand closed Sd/- I SRINIVASA REDDY ASJ S TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

JE.r,o* oFFrcER

t

To, 1 The XVll Additional Chief Judicial tVlagistrate at Nampa I ' 2 The Station House Officer, Police Station Jubilee Hills, - yderabad. 3 One CC to SRI lvl PRATAP S|NGH, Advocate [OpUC;] 4, One CC to SRI, JITHENDER RAO VEERATVALLA, AC, I;ate IoPUCI 5 One CC's to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for rt t .jtataof t eljnqana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶85