Sri Etikala Madhusudhan Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8027 OF 2026 Dated: 04.06.2026 BETWEEN :
Sri Etikala Madhusudhan Reddy and others
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5
AND The State of Telangana.
... Respondent O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.582 of 2026 on the file of the Hayathnagar police Station, Malkajgiri District registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) read with 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 81 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3.
The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before Hayathnagar Police Station alleging that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed organized fraud by causing the registration of a Partition Deed bearing Document No.104/2026, dated 05.01.2026, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas (7,986 Sq. Yards) situated in Survey Nos.376, 401, 405 and 406 of Pasumamula Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, valued at approximately Rs.30 crores. According to the complainant, the subject land had long ago been converted into non-agricultural plotted land and since 1990 several plots therein have been alienated in favour of numerous bona fide purchasers through registered sale deeds.
The land is reflected in the revenue records, including the Bhu Bharathi/Dharani portal, as "Plotted Land", thereby rendering an agricultural partition impermissible. The complainant claims to be one such bona fide purchaser and the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.174 admeasuring 200 square yards in Sy.No.376 of Pasumamula Village, within the limits of Pedda Amberpet Municipality.
intention to grab the property and affect the possession and marketability of the plots held by the complainant and other purchasers, created and relied upon fabricated documents, including a notarized Will dated 24.10.2013 purportedly executed by one Etikala Chinna Veera Reddy. The prosecution alleges that the stamp paper for the said Will was purchased by Accused No.2 and that the document is suspicious and was created solely to facilitate the unlawful claim over the property. The prosecution further alleges that the accused persons fabricated and used false revenue proceedings, namely Proceedings No.B/776/1998 dated 15.09.1998 purportedly issued by the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, and Proceedings No.B/367/2010 dated 14.07.2010 purportedly issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District (East).
Preliminary enquiries allegedly revealed that no such proceedings were issued by the concerned authorities, indicating fabrication of public records. It is further alleged that Accused No.2 had earlier instituted O.S. No.802 of 2019 for partition before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, claiming the subject land to be ancestral joint family property, and had also filed W.P. No.
before the High Court for the State of Telangana seeking to restrain registrations relating to the subject property. Despite being aware of the pendency of the said proceedings, accused No.1, the Sub-Registrar, allegedly colluded with accused Nos.2 to 5 and registered the impugned Partition Deed on 05.01.2026, thereby abusing his official position and failing to discharge his statutory duties under the Registration Act. It is also alleged that accused No.3, a document writer, actively participated in the preparation and registration of the impugned document by using forged records and facilitating its execution in connivance with the other accused. Based on the complaint, Hayathnagar Police registered Crime No.582/2026, dated 09.04.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 81 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. Investigation is presently in progress.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value, they pertain to disputes relating to title, partition and registration of immovable property, which are purely civil in
nature and are already the subject matter of pending civil litigation. It is contended that the criminal law has been set into motion only with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioners and to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. It is further submitted that the civil dispute relating to the subject land is already pending adjudication in O.S. No.802 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and that the said suit is presently at the stage of hearing of an interlocutory application, thereby clearly establishing that the rights, title and interest over the property are already sub judice. 5.
It is also submitted that the very document which is now being projected as the foundation for the criminal allegations, namely, Partition Deed bearing Document No.104/2026 dated 05.01.2026, clearly reflects that the transaction is a private inter se family arrangement among the parties, namely, Etikala Madhusudhan Reddy, Etikala Mahender Reddy, Etikala Vasantha, and Etikala Swathi and that the same was executed to amicably divide the property as the parties found it inconvenient to enjoy the same jointly.
6.
Learned counsel further contends that if the de facto complainant had any grievance against the said partition deed, he ought to have filed an appropriate civil suit seeking cancellation of the same. Initiation of criminal proceedings is therefore unwarranted, particularly when the entire dispute is civil in nature and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. Hence, learned counsel prays that this Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that by virtue of the Partition Deed, the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are claiming rights over the subject property and therefore, the present case is not a fit one for granting pre-arrest bail to them. He submits that the Partition Deed pertains to inter se disputes among family members in respect of the property over which the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 have laid their claim. The entire tenor of the complaint indicates that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. It is not the case that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 5 have resulted in the freezing or extinguishment of the rights of any of the rival
claimants, including the de facto complainant. The dispute primarily concerns competing claims over the property, which are already the subject matter of civil proceedings. 8.
Evidently, the disputes concerning the subject property are already pending adjudication in W.P. Nos.3999 of 2025, 3850 of 2026, 3835 of 2026, and 4028 of 2026 before this Court, as well as in O.S. No. 802 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge at L.B. Nagar. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, and the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary at this stage and it is appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
7.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed granting Anticipatory Bail on the following conditions:
1) Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Malkajgiri District, on or before 15.06.2026 before 01:00 p.m., and on such surrender, the said Station House Officer shall release him on bail on executing a personal bound for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, for the
like sum each to the satisfaction of Hayathnagar Police Station, Malkajgiri District.
2) Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. for a period of twelve (12) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier and thereafter shall cooperate at all times whenever called by the police for investigation.
3) Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and co-operate with the investigating officer in investigating the case.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Date: 04.06.2026 SPD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8027 of 2026 Dt.04.06.2026 SPD