1 

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

*****

Criminal Petition No.2255 OF 2021

Between:

Rebala Kishore Kumar Reddy and another … Petitioners

And

The State of Telangana,

Through SHO, CCS, Hyderabad,

rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana,

Hyderabad & another

… Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.01.2023

Submitted for approval.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1 Whether Reporters of Local

newspapers may be allowed to see

the Judgments?

Yes/No

2 Whether the copies of judgment

may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship

wish to see the fair copy of the

Judgment?

Yes/No

__________________

K.SURENDER, J

2 

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

+ CRL.P. No. 2255 of 2021

% Dated 10.01.2023

# Rebala Kishore Kumar Reddy and another …Petitioners

And

$ The State of Telangana,

Through SHO, CCS, Hyderabad,

rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana,

Hyderabad & another … Respondents

!  Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.S.Suneel.

^ 

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan, Additional Public

Prosecutor for R1

Sri Rahul Khandharkar for R2

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1

 (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 779 

2 (2012) 1 Supreme court Cases 656) 

3

 (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 776) 

4

 (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 581)

5

 (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315) 

6

 (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 

7

 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736 

8

 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335

3 

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2255 OF 2021

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against

the petitioners/A1 and A2 in FIR No.198 of 2020 on the file of SHO,

CCS, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners are questioning the registration of crime for the

offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC by the CCS, Hyderabad

mainly on the ground that thoug h the civil proceedings were

pending between the parties since the year 2009 regarding the

property in question, the police erred in registering the crime after

the 2

nd respondent lost civil litigation right up to the Supreme

Court.

3. The case of the 2

nd respondent is that the petitioners herein,

who are A1 and A2 and 7 others were responsible for cheating and

committing misappropriation. The 2

nd respondent and his family

members executed GPA in favour of 1

st petitioner herein on

27.03.2006. The 1

st petitioner introduced A3 as the Chairman and

Managing Director of Trend Se t Builders Private Limited for

development of 16,660 sq.yds of the property of the 2

nd respondent.

4 

The petitioners herein obtained signatures of the 2

nd respondent

and his brother on blank cheques stating that they were necessary

for approvals in Government Departments. However, first petitioner

opened an account in South Indian Bank and maintained

transactions from 2006 to 2010 in collusion with A3. The

petitioners and other family members also opened account in Karur

Vysya Bank and obtained Demand Draft worth Rs.1,00,80,000/-

stating that they would deduct the said amount from the sale price.

Since the said amount of Rs.1,00,80,000/- was deducted from their

accounts, when questioned, the 1

st petitioner issued 15 cheques.

However, the said cheques issued by the 1

st petitioner were

returned unpaid. When the said dishonor of cheques was

questioned, the 1

st petitioner requested the 2

nd respondent and his

family members not to present remaining cheques and entered into

MOU dated 07.11.2009 stating that construction would be

completed within three years in 16,660 sq.yds. Thereafter, the 1

st

petitioner entered into agreement with A3 without their knowledge

and received an amount of Rs.6.50 Crores. Since disputes arose

with respect to the property, the parties approached the civil courts,

High Court and Supreme Court.

5 

4. On the basis of the said complaint that the 2

nd respondent and

family members have been cheated in respect of the property,

criminal action was initiated and accordingly, present FIR was

registered.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that the 2

nd respondent having lost his claim before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SLP Civil No.17457 of 2016 dated 11.04.2018

has filed the complaint only to coerce the petitioners and others

into settling civil dispute. There are several civil disputes that are

filed with regard to the said property and the parties have been

pursuing with the said disputes in the Civil Court. For the said

reason of the allegations in the complaint being civil in nature, FIR

has to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2

nd respondent

would not dispute that there are civil disputes among the parties.

However, in the order dated 26.11.2015 of the XIV Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court in Arb.O.P.No.2739 of 2013, the court found

that the 1

st petitioner herein, who is the 2

nd respondent therein did

not file any material to prove that payment of sale consideration

6 

was made and in fact different plea was taken by the 1

st petitioner

herein stating that Rs.8.00 Crores were paid to the 2

nd respondent’s

family. There is inconsistecy with respect to the plea taken by the

1

st petitioner herein. Further, the Civil Court did not believe that 1

st

petitioner and others made payment of Rs.8.00 Crores to the 2

nd

respondent family.

7. He relied on the judgment in the case of State of Telangana

v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani

1

in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that at the time of registration of crime, the genuineness or

otherwise of the information mentioned in the complaint is not

relevant. He also relied on the judgment reported in the case of

Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana

2

and argued that power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer

with regard to any right, title or interest on the immovable property.

The said power is revocable and could be terminated.

1

 (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 779 

2

 (2012) 1 Supreme court Cases 656) 

7 

8. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of HMT Watches

Limited v. M.A.Abida and another

3

and argued that the High

Court under inherent powers un der Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot

decide the cases on the basis of disputed questions of fact.

9. Further in the case of Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora and

others

4

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that quashing of criminal

proceedings at the inception would amount to stifling legitimate

prosecution and investigation should not be scuttled at the very

inception. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v.

State of Maharashtra

5

, wherein it is held that the discretion has to

be given to the investigating agency to decide the course of

investigation and also the High Court under the powers under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot pass orders in the manner of closing a

legitimate criminal proceeding. Therefore counsel prayed to dismiss

the petition.

3

 (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 776) 

4

 (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 581) 

5

 (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315) 

8 

10. As evident from the record, there are ongoing disputes in

between the parties since the year 2006. All the issues in between

the parties were carried to the civil courts. The civil courts have

adjudicated upon the disputes in between the parties and

admittedly, most of the suits were also disposed off by the civil

courts. Three of the cases are still pending and the said details are

given in a tabulated form by the counsel for the petitioners and

details regarding the pendency of cases and status mentioned in the

said table are not disputed. For the sake of convenience, the said

table is extracted hereunder:

S.No Case No. Appellant/

Plaintiff

Respondent/

Defendant Court Status Date of

Judgment

1 Arb.O.P.No

2739/2013

Kazmi

Group

(defacto

Complaina

nt)

Petitioners

in the

present

criminal

petition

others

XXIV ACJ,

CCC

Allowed 26.11.2015

2 CMA

No.959,

960, 1023

of 2015

Petitioners

in the

present

criminal

petition

others Aslam Kazmi

and Others

(defacto

complainant)

HIGH

COURT

Partly

allowed

10.02.2016

3 Civil

Appeal

No.3747 of

2018

Petitioners

in the

present

criminal

petition

others Kazmi Group

(defacto

complainant)

SUPREME

COURT

Allowed 11.04.2018

9 

4

O.S.No.749/

2018 Suit for

Specific

Performance

M/s.

Koushik

Project &

another

The

petitioners

herein and

Kazmi

Group

III ACJ,

CCC

Pending —

5 I.A.No.2927/

2018 in

O.S.No.749/

2018 M/s.

Koushik

Project &

anr

The

petitioners

herein and

Aslam

kazmi &

Others

III ACJ,

CCC

Dismissed 04.01.2019

6 O.S.No.

664/2014

Suit for

Specific

Performance

Syed

Vaseemuddin

The

petitioners

herein and

Aslam

kazmi &

Others

III ACJ,

CCC

Dismissed 22.01.2020

7 O.S.No.

43/2011

Suit for

Specific

Performan

ce

Krishnamurthy

Aslam

kazmi &

Others

XIV ACJ,

CCC

Pending 16.12.2022

8 O.S. No.

3631/2009

Mount

Meru

Apartments

Welfare

Association

Aslam

kazmi &

Others

VII JCJ,

CCC

Dismissed 23.04.2012

9 O.S.No.

1374/2009 A.

Eswaramma

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

IV SC

Judge

CCC

Dismissed 24.01.2011

10 O.S.No.

416/2012

Mohd.

Ahmed

Khan

Pashaa

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

IV SC

Judge

CCC

Dismissed 30.7.2014

11 O.S.No.

99/2012

Bilkhis

Begum

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

III ACJ,

CCC

Dismissed 26.11.2012

10 

12 O.S.No.

100/2012

Md. Zubair

Alam

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

III ACJ,

CCC

Dismissed 26.11.2012

13 O.S.No.

101/2012

S. Nazeem

Uddin

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

III ACJ,

CCC

Dismissed 26.11.2012

14 E.P.No.

533/2021

Md. Zubair

Alam

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

III ACJ,

CCC

Pending

15 O.S.No.

240/2013

Syed

Subtenabi

Abdi

Sohrad

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

III ACJ,

CCC

16 GPA Doc.

No.

1441/2013

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

In favour of

Shoib Bin

Hamed

Dt.

22.05.2013

17 Sale Deed

No.

1440/2013

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

In favour of

Syed

Nizamuddi

n

Dt.

22.05.2013

18 Gift

Settlement

Doc. No.

702/2013

Aslam

Kazmi &

Others

Aslam

Kazmi

Dt.

07.02.2013

19 O.S. No.

749/2018

M/s.

Koushiki

Projects &

Kolli Vijay

Kumar

Aslam

Kazmi &

others

III ACJ,

CCC

Pending 19-12-2022

20 Sale Deed

No.

6693/2018

Aslam

Kazmi &

others

In favour of

Kolli Vijaya

Kumar

28.08.2018

21 Sale Deed

No.

6694/2018

Aslam

Kazmi &

others

In favour of

M/s

Koushiki

Projects

28.08.2018

11 

22 Agreement

of sale No.

6695/2018

Aslam

Kazmi &

others

In favour of

M/s

Koushiki

Projects

28.08.2018

11. No doubt, commercial transactions or breach of contacts in

between the parties in the course of business may amount to

criminal acts also which can be tried simultaneously. When the civil

disputes are pending before the civil courts, only for the reason of

pendency of civil disputes, it cannot be said that criminal

proceedings cannot be maintained. However, the Court has to look

into whether the transactions are predominantly civil in nature and

whether such criminal cases are filed for the purpose of

pressurizing the parties for settling civil disputes.

12. All the civil disputes which were carried to the civil courts,

High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court are not in dispute. The said

disputes are from the year 2009 itself and the contract was in the

year 2006. Several transactions transpired in between the parties

over the period of nearly 14 years and ultimately, criminal

complaint is filed. A reading of the present criminal complaint, the

allegations made are regarding the agreement entered into the year

12 

2006 in between the 1

st petitioner and others and also the family of

the 2

nd respondent in developing the property.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed

Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another

6

held that

when disputes are essentially civil in nature, it is the duty of the

criminal courts to check abuse of the process and see to that

criminal proceedings are not misused to pressurize and settle civil

disputes.

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil

Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and others

7

held that when

the disputes arise out of breach of contract and civil remedy was

available, the allegations in the criminal complaint has to be

considered and the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C quash

such criminal proceedings which are made with an intention of

setting civil disputes.

15. At this length of time only on the basis of observations of the

XIV Additional Chief Judge in the judgment dated 26.11.2015 in

6

 (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 

7

 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736 

13 

Arb.O.P.No.2739 of 2013 that the plea of the 1

st Petitioner herein

and 1

st respondent in Arb. OP was found to be suspicious, the said

observations made cannot be made basis to continue criminal

proceedings. All the transactions mentioned in the complaint are

subject matter of adjudication before the civil courts and since the

disputes are predominantly civil in nature and parties have

approached civil courts to a scertain their rights and settle

grievances, I find that the criminal prosecution at this length of

time on the very same facts cannot be maintained. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of

State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan

Lal and others

8

held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal

grudge cannot be maintained.

16. Viewed from any angle, registration of crime and continuance

of criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted

which is abuse of the process of law.

8

 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 

14 

17. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and

A2 in FIR No.198 of 2020 on the file of SHO, CCS, Hyderabad are

hereby quashed.

18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________

______

K.SURENDER, J

Date: 10.01.2023

Note: LR copy to be marked.

B/o.kvs

15 

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER  

CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.2255 OF 2021

Date: 10.01.2023

kvs

16