Paladugu Raghuram vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

Paladugu Raghuram vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


          CRIMINAL PETITION No.15760 of 2024


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1

and 2 in Crime No.464 of 2024 of KPHB Colony Police Station,

Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘).

2. The brief facts of the case are that in May-June 2017,

de facto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating

that Paladugu Sunitha Devi and her husband Raghuram

approached him to rent the 2nd floor portion of his property

bearing H.No.16-3-V/688, Vasanth Nagar Colony,

Hydernagar. Raghuram introduced himself as a general

manager working at HCL Technologies Ltd, with an annual

package of rupees One crore. He also claimed that a senior

politician in Andhra Pradesh was close to them and their

business associate. On the pretext of investing in the share

market, Raghuram, his wife P. Sunitha, his sister Papayi @
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

Padmasri, and his brother-in-law Dineel convinced him and

his wife to invest in the share market with promises of higher

returns. Raghuram and his wife Sunitha deceitfully took

Rs.1,45,50,000/- on different dates, pretending to invest in

the share market. They also opened a bank account in the

name of the de-facto complainant and operated it without his

knowledge or consent.

3. When the complainant discovered the misappropriation

of money and the series of criminal acts committed by

Raghuram and his wife Sunitha, he questioned them. In

response, they attacked him and his family members.

Immediately, the complainant filed a complaint against

Raghuram and his wife Sunitha at KPHB Police Station, which

registered Crime No.240 of 2021 under sections 448, 420,

452, 406, 506, and 120-B IPC, dated 26.03.2021. During the

investigation, Sunitha Devi and Raghuram admitted to

deceiving the complainant, taking money for personal needs,

and promising to return the amounts. They requested the

complainant to withdraw the criminal complaint and provided

five cheques for repayment, which were later dishonored. The

complainant then filed complaints under Section 138 of the NI
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

Act against them, which is pending adjudication in Court. As

a counterblast to the FIR and cheque bounce cases,

Raghuram and his wife Sunitha filed a false case against the

complainant at Raidurg Police Station, misusing documents.

The Raidurg Police investigated and closed the case as false.

Similarly, Sunitha Devi and her husband Raghuram created a

fake agreement of sale dated 07.05.2021 regarding the

complainant’s house property bearing H.No.16-3-V/688 (PTIN

1141607483), Vasanth Nagar Colony, Hydernagar, and a fake

receipt dated 07.05.2021 by forging the complainant’s

signature.

4. The alleged agreement of sale dated 07.05.2021 and the

alleged receipt dated 07.05.2021 are forged and fabricated,

and the complainant did not execute these documents. The

accused, being habitual offenders, filed a false suit for specific

performance bearing O.S.No.38 of 2021 before the III

Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Principal Family Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukkatpally. Basing on the

said complaint, the Police registered a case against the
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

petitioners, vide Crime No.464 of 2024, for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of IPC.

5. Heard Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-State and Smt. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

impugned proceedings do not disclose any cognizable offence,

particularly under Sections 420, 406, 467, and 468 IPC and

that the charge-sheet in FIR No.240 of 2021 contains similar

contents to the impugned FIR, rendering the petitioners liable

to undergo a second trial on the same set of facts, which is

unjust. He further submitted that the filing of the impugned

FIR is flawed by an unexplained and unreasonable delay of

over three years, despite the respondent’s knowledge of the

alleged fabricated documents and that respondent No.2 is

aware of the pendency of O.S.No.38 of 2023 has filed these

proceedings as a counterblast, attempting to convert a civil

dispute into a criminal proceeding to arm-twist the

petitioners. He contended that the entire cause of action
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

arises from an alleged contractual dispute, which cannot be

converted into a criminal proceeding, especially at the

instance of the violating party, and thus, the impugned

proceedings are liable to be quashed.

7. In support of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarak Dash Mukharjee and Others

v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, wherein in paragraph

Nos.11 and 12, it is held as under:

“11. We have perused both the FIRs. The
respondent no. 4 is the first informant in both the
FIRs and the same are based on the same
agreement for sale executed on 14th June 2006. The
allegation made in both the FIRs is the same. The
allegation is that by practising forgery and fraud,
the appellant no. 1 has sold the subject property to
appellant no. 2 thereby deceiving the respondent no.

4. The second FIR, which is the subject matter of
challenge, was registered nearly four years after the
first FIR was registered. The challenge to the first
FIR is pending before the High Court. These aspects
have been completely overlooked by the High Court
in the impugned judgment.

12. If multiple First Information Reports by the
same person against the same accused are
permitted to be registered in respect of the same set
of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused
getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the
registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but
abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the
registration of such successive FIRs on the same set
of facts and allegations at the instance of the same
informant will not stand the scrutiny of
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The
settled legal position on this behalf has been
completely ignored by the High Court.”

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2

submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners

are serious in nature. The petitioners allegedly forged the

signature of the de facto complainant and created a sale

agreement stating that the sale consideration was Rs.9 crores,

of which the petitioners claimed to have paid Rs.8.9 crores in

cash, which is itself untenable in law. He further submitted

that respondent No.2 sent the documents to the forensic

laboratory, and the report confirms that the signature is

forged. The original documents are with the trial court, and

the Investigating Officer needs to examine them. If the

document itself is forged, the suit is not maintainable.

Admittedly, this case is not a mere breach of contract; it is a

clear case of forgery and cheating, which requires thorough

investigation. The mere pendency of the civil suit is not a valid

ground to quash the proceedings when criminal offences are
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

alleged. Therefore, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the

criminal petition.

9. In support of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for respondent No.2, he relied upon the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh

Chander and another, wherein in paragraph No.27, it is held

as under:

27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under
these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section
482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional
distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist
the principles with reference to which the courts
should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not
only difficult but is inherently impossible to state
with precision such principles. At best and upon
objective analysis of various judgments of this
Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles
to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction,
particularly, with regard to quashing of charge
either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case
may be:

27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of
the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the
more the power, the more due care and caution is to
be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of
quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code
should be exercised very sparingly and with
8
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether
the uncontroverted allegations as made from the
record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If
the allegations are so patently absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can
ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied
then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere.

No meticulous examination of the evidence is
needed for considering whether the case would end
in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge
or quashing of charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice
and for correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even in such
cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere,
at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in
exercise of its inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in
any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law
in force to the very initiation or institution and
continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a
bar is intended to provide specific protection to an
accused.

27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom
of a person and the right of the complainant or
9
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

prosecution to investigate and prosecute the
offender.

27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted
to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior
purpose.

27.8. Where the allegations made and as they
appeared from the record and documents annexed
therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute
a “civil wrong” with no “element of criminality” and
does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal
offence, the court may be justified in quashing the
charge. Even in such cases, the court would not
embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.

27.9. Another very significant caution that the
courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the
facts, evidence and materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material on the basis of
which the case would end in a conviction; the court
is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as
a whole whether they will constitute an offence and,
if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice.

27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called
upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate
evidence collected by the investigating agencies to
find out whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim
and also amount to an offence, merely because a
civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a
criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
10

SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot
take into consideration external materials given by
an accused for reaching the conclusion that no
offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of
his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record
and documents annexed therewith by the
prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the
rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is
even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more
inclined to permit continuation of prosecution
rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The
Court is not expected to marshal the records with a
view to decide admissibility and reliability of the
documents or records but is an opinion formed
prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under
Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from
fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well
within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where
the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of
process of the Code or that the interest of justice
favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do
real and substantial justice for administration of
which alone, the courts exist.

27.16. These are the principles which individually
and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken
into consideration as precepts to exercise of
extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction
11
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court.
Where the factual foundation for an offence has
been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and
should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on
the premise that one or two ingredients have not
been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there
is substantial compliance with the requirements of
the offence.”

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in

nature, and the investigation is not yet completed. At this

stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does

not arise. Therefore, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the

criminal petition.

11. In light of the submissions made by both learned

counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it

appears that the case was registered based on the complaint

given by respondent No.2 concerning the alleged offences. The

primary allegation against the petitioners is that they forged

the signature of respondent No.2 and fabricated an agreement

of sale, claiming they entered into an agreement to purchase

the property for Rs.9 crores and had already paid an amount

of Rs.8.9 crores by way of cash. These averments indicate that
12
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

respondent No.2 never agreed to sell the property and that the

documents in question are fabricated.

12. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioners is that there was a delay of one year in lodging

the report. To substantiate this, respondent No.2 submitted

that he became aware of the document’s fabrication only after

receiving the summons in the civil suit filed for specific

performance of the agreement of sale. After receiving the

notice in the said suit, he approached an advocate and

discussed the matter, resulting in the delay of one year. The

alleged agreement of sale needs to be sent to the Investigating

Officer, who must investigate the matter concerning the

forgery of the said documents. Therefore, the delay is not a

valid ground for allowing this application.

13. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioners is that an FIR was already registered for the

same set of facts under FIR No.240 of 2021, and registering

another case for the same offences amounts to abuse of the

process of law. However, it is argued that the previous FIR

and the allegations therein are different, while the present FIR

primarily concerns the fabrication of the agreement of sale
13
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

with a forged signature. The contents of the present FIR differ

from the first FIR, and as the case is at the initial stage, it

cannot be said that it is not maintainable. Learned counsel

for respondent No.2 relied on the observations made by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor (supra), wherein it

was held that merely because a civil claim is maintainable, it

does not imply that a criminal complaint cannot be pursued

when the allegations amount to a criminal offence.

14. The third contention raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioners is that they have already filed a civil suit for

specific performance of the agreement of sale, and the

respondent has filed a written statement with all defences

related to the alleged forged document. Therefore, it is argued

that the matter can be adjudicated in the civil suit, and a

criminal case is not necessary. However, as previously

discussed, the mere existence of a civil suit does not preclude

the initiation of a criminal case when the allegations pertain to

serious offences such as forgery and cheating.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at

this stage, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal
14
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15760 of 2024

petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 26.03.2025
SAI