High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/12974/2025dismissed

Mandalaneni Srinivasa Rao Alias Mandalaneni Srinivas, v. The State Of Telangana,

2025-10-24Tirumala Devi Eada6 pages

134441

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER N/VO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12974 OF 2025 Between Mandalaneni Srinivasa Rao @ Mandalaneni Srinivas, S/o.Mandalaneni Satyanarayana Aged 42yrs. Occ. Business R/o Flat No.1A, 1st FloorAnusha Residency, Road No.2 Opp.Lane 2, Adithya Fort View Villas Puppalaguda Village, ManikondaRanga Reddy District.

Borra Venkata Appa Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, aged 53 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o Flat No.304, Vision Arcade, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Bachupally, Hyderabad. ..Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

...Respondent

2. Jangala Pramod Ravinder, S/o.Late Jantala Pramoda Krishna Aged about 56 yrs., Occ. Business R/o H.No.3-3-649, Rangrez Bazar Secunderabad, Hyderabad ...RespondenUDe-Facto Com plainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the FIR No.157 of 2O25 on the file of the Market Police Station, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, dated 2510812025 for the alleged offence U/ Secs. 338,336(3), 340(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS.,2023 and Quash the same.

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section .528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No.157 of 2025 on the file of the Market Police Station, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, dated 2510812025 for the alleged offence U/Secs. 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS., 2023 including the arrest of the Petitioners pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V'V' Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORD

,,/ THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CR AL PETIT ONN .12974 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos'1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No'157 of 2025 on the file of Market Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(21' 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS'

2. Heard Sri V.V. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have entered into a development agreement with the father of the de facto complainant, but since their father died' the de facto complainant has come up with the present allegations' which are false and that they never forged any document of the said agreement. He further submitted that by filing the present case' the de facto complainant and the police are forcing the petitioners to enter into a compromise. He further submitted that if at all there is any such allegation, other remedies are available to the de facto complainant, but he is bent upon settling the civil disputes by resorting to criminal proceedings and hence, prayed to quash the El ./\ \

EfD.J Ctt.P. No.rEtaot2ois proceedings. He further submitted that there is no allegation to attract the offence under Section 33g of BNS and that the petitioners, in fact, have helped the de facto complainant and his father initially, but, now the petitioners are facing allegations that they have forged the documents. He further submitted that when the offence under Section 33g of BNS is kept aside, all the other offences are punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment, hence, the police concerned may be directed to invoke the procedure under Section 3S(3) of BNSS.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor has opposed the petition stating that the petitioners herein have helped the de facto complainant earlier in getting the land converted into NALA, after obtaining the said orders, the petitioners have created the development agreement purported to have been executed by the father of the de facto complainant and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations pima facle point out the offences under Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2),318(4) and 351(2) of BNS against the petitioners. lt is alleged that the petitioners have initially helped the I

J ) efo,J Cd-P. tlo.la7a on025 de facto complainant and his father in getting their land converted into NALA. However, subsequently, out of the acquaintance when the father of the de facto complainant intended to execute the Will deed, the petitioner No.1 herein has assured them that he would get it done and under the guise of executing the said document, he has got a forged document into existence stating that the father of the de facto complainant has entered into development agreement with the petitioners.

7. Thus, the allegations point out the offence of forgery, which is punishable with more than 7 years, hence, the proceedings under Section 35 (3) of BNSS cannot be invoked in the present case. The investigation is still in progress. The truth in the allegations is yet to be unraveled and hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD'. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPYI/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Secunderabad'

2. The Station House Officer, Market Police Station' Hyderabad' s.rwoccstothePublicProsecutor'HighCourtforthestateofTelangana,at* Hyderabad. [OUTI

4. One CC to Sri V.V.Narasimha Rao, Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies Svs/PSL Yr

HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 iT (Q --9 .s'

s 'ri.

ORDER

I c( O tle5 CRLP.N0.12974 ol ,H :+ DISMISSING THE CRLP I cdA &,