Telangana High Court

Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Telangana on 18 September, 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1343 OF 2021

% Dated 18.09.2025

# Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by G. Madhusudhan Rao
and two others

....Petitioners
VERSUS

$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court at Hyderabad
and another

... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.T. Chandra Sehkhar

^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Gaddam Srinivas (R.2)
Mr. M. Vevekananda Reddy
Assistant Public Prosecutor
(R.1)
< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:

1. (2023) 3 SCC 423
2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948
3. 2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC)
4. (2015) 6 SCC 287
5. 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 447
6. (1989) 2 SCC 132
7. (2003) 4 SCC 139
8. (2020) 14 SCC 552
9. (2015) 3 SCC 424
10. (2019) 14 SCC 350
11. (2019) 20 SCC 539
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1343 of 2021

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed under
Section
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.17248 of 2019 on the file of the XII

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for

the offences punishable under
Sections 406
,
and
120B

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the
IPC
') by

setting aside the orders, dated 19.02.2020, in

Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2019passed by the learned I Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed a private

complaint on 13.04.2017 on the file of the XII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad,

stating that petitioner No.1, Grandhe Developers Private

Limited, being represented by its Directors, i.e., petitioner

Nos. 2 and 3, entered into an agreement of sale with him on

12.03.2013 for the sale of open plots for a total sale
consideration of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. At the time of the

agreement, an amount of Rs.91,55,000/- was paid as

advance and the agreement was reduced into writing at the

Registrar Office of the company situated at Narayanaguda,

Hyderabad. Subsequently, he paid further amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- on 13.03.2013, Rs.10,00,000/- on

15.03.2013 and Rs.5,45,000/- on 03.04.2013, totalling Rs.

22,45,000/- through RTGS to petitioner No.2. As per the

terms of the agreement, the balance amount of

Rs.73,45,000/- was to be paid within eight months and the

final balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid at the

time of registration of the plots. On the instructions of

petitioner Nos.2 and 3, he transferred the balance

consideration directly to the accounts of accused Nos.4 to

11, who were described as sleeping partners of the

company. Despite receiving the entire sale consideration,

petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 failed to perform their part of the

contract and on one pretext or another, deliberately

postponed the registration of the plots and they

misrepresented him that the plots were falling under FTL

and that they were in the process of getting the land

cleared by the Revenue Authorities. Believing their

assurance, he waited for several months. However, to his
utter surprise, he subsequently realized that the petitioners

and other accused persons had cheated him with a

dishonest intention from the inception. Having been vexed

with their evasive conduct, he issued a legal notice to the

petitioner and accused Nos.4 to 11. Accused Nos.6, 7, 9

and 11 were received the notices and the notices in respect

of remaining accused were returned un-served. In spite of

service of the legal notice, the petitioners and accused

Nos.4 to 11 did not come forward to execute the registered

sale deed in his favour. Left with no alternative, he

approached the Hon'ble Court and lodged the present

complaint against the petitioner and accused Nos.4 to 11

and the same was referred to the Central Crime Station,

Hyderabad. Pursuant to the same, Crime No.98 of 2017

was registered. The Investigating Officer after conducting

investigation filed a final report on 28.05.2018 referred the

matter as 'false'. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed protest

petition and the learned Magistrate taken cognizance

against the petitioner and issued summons, by its order

dated 19.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

filed Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 and the learned

I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad,
dismissed the same, by its order dated 19.02.2020. Hence,

this criminal petition.

3. Heard Mr. T. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for

the petitioners, Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for

respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have

not committed any offence. However, the petitioners were

falsely implicated as accused in the present crime. Even

according to the allegations made in the complaint, the

ingredients under
Sections 406
,
and
120B
of the IPC

does not attract. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint

on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Hyderabad on 13.04.2017 and the same was

referred to the police. Basing on the said complaint, Crime

No.98 of 2017 was registered. The Investigating Officer,

during the course of enquiry, sent the agreement of sale

dated 12.03.2013 to the Forensic Science Laboratory and

the Government of Telangana, Telangana State Forensic
Science Laboratories issued report dated 28.04.2021

opining that the person who wrote the red enclosed

signatures marked A1 to A5 and S1 to S30 did not write the

red enclosed signatures marked Q1 to Q6 and further, the

person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked A6 to

A10 and S31 to S60 did not write the red enclosed

signatures marked Q7 to Q9. Basing on the F.S.L. report,

the Investigating Officer filed the final report on

28.05.2018, stating that as 'false'. In the said final report,

the Investigating Officer specifically mentioned that the

document i.e., agreement of sale, dated 12.03.2013, is not

a genuine document, as it was prepared on 28.01.2013 on

a Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper, thereby rendering it

as a created and fabricated document. In spite of the

same, the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad, based on the protest petition filed

by respondent No.2, took cognizance against the petitioners

and issued summons, through order dated 19.11.2019,

without considering the final report and without assigning

any reasons and the learned I Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge also without considering the memorandum

of grounds raised by the petitioners in the criminal revision
petition dismissed the same on 19.02.2020, simply

confirming the order of the learned Magistrate.

4.2. He also submitted that the petitioners never received

any amount from respondent No.2 nor cheated him, as

alleged in the complaint. Hence, the ingredients under

Sections 406
,
and
120B
of the IPC do not attract. He

further submitted that petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint

against respondent No.2 and the same was registered as

Crime No.26 of 2021 for the offences punishable under

Sections 465
,
,
and
of the IPC and the

Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the

final report and the same was taken cognizance and

numbered it as C.C.No.9582 of 2021 and the said case is

pending before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

4.3. He further submitted that basing upon the very same

alleged agreement of sale, respondent No.2 had filed a suit,

namely, O.S.No.223 of 2023 on the file of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Malkajgiri, seeking specific performance of agreement of

sale and the said suit is pending. Hence, continuation of
criminal proceedings basing upon the fabricated document

is clear abuse of the process of law.

4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the

following judgments:

1.
Deepak Gaba and others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another
1;

2. Thiyagarajan Anjayampati Sivaswamy
v. The State of Telangana
(Crl.P.No.3651 of 2023);

3. Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of
Maharashtra and another 2;

4.
Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and
others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another
3; and

5. Priyanka Srivastava and another v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another 4.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent
No.2

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that petitioner

No.1 is a private limited company and petitioner Nos.2 and

3, who are husband and wife respectively, are the Directors
(2023) 3 SCC 423
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948
2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 616 (SC)
(2015) 6 SCC 287
of petitioner No.1 company. The petitioners entered into an

agreement of sale, dated 12.03.2013, with respondent No.2

and they agreed to sell the open plots for a sum of

Rs.1,70,00,000/- and respondent No.2 has paid an amount

of Rs.1,65,00,000/- on various dates towards the sale

consideration and he has to pay balance sale consideration

of Rs.5,00,000/- only. In spite of receiving a substantial

amount towards sale consideration, the petitioners failed to

execute the registered sale deed, On the contrary, with

dishonest intention to cheat respondent No.2, they sold

some of the plots to third parties. He further submitted

that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 13.04.2017.

However, at the instance of the petitioners, the

Investigating Officer, without properly conducting a proper

and fair investigation, filed the final report referring the

case as 'false'.

5.2. Aggrieved thereby respondent No.2 filed a protest

petition. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn

statement of respondent No.2 as PW.1 and PW.2 and after

going through the documents, filed by respondent No.2 i.e.,

Exs.P.1 to P.13, took cognizance against the petitioners and

rightly issued summons, through order dated 19.11.2019.
He further submitted that learned Sessions Judge by giving

cogent reasons dismissed the revision petition holding that

the real facts as to whether there were any transactions

between respondent No.2 and the petitioners under

agreement of sale will come into light only on conducting

full-fledged trial, by its order dated 19.02.2020.

5.3. He further submitted that the allegations made by the

petitioners that the stamp paper is a fabricated one is not

true and correct. In fact, the stamp paper had purchased

by petitioner No.2 only on the name of respondent No.2 and

no prudent man will purchase the fabricated stamp paper

by paying huge amount to the petitioners as sale

consideration. He further submitted that the petitioners,

since inception, are having ill-intention to cheat respondent

No.2. Therefore, the petitioners, even after receiving the

sale consideration, sold some plots to third parties in spite

of existence of agreement of sale between the petitioners

and respondent No.2.

5.4. He further submitted that respondent No.2 paid an

amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 by

way of cash and RTGS and a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- to

accused Nos.4 to 11 by way of RTGS, and the petitioners
have received total amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/-.

Respondent No.2 filed RTGS receipts before the learned

Magistrate along with the protest petition. The learned

Magistrate after due consideration of the statements of

PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.13, specifically held that a

prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and

accordingly took cognizance against the petitioners.

5.5. He further submitted that subsequent to the learned

Magistrate taking cognizance, petitioner No.2 filed a

complaint against respondent No.2 basing upon the alleged

F.S.L. report. The Investigating Officer, without properly

conducting an investigation, filed the charge sheet. In the

said case, respondent No.2 filed discharge application

seeking to discharge him in the said proceedings and the

same is pending. He also submitted that respondent No.2

filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale

against the petitioners and others on 16.11.2022. The

pendency of the civil suit is not a ground for seeking to

quash the proceedings. There are no grounds to interfere

with the orders passed by the learned XII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was confirmed

by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Hyderabad, and the criminal petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the

following judgments:

1.
Thota Papi Reddy and others v. Gudalli
Yellaiah
land and others 5;

2. M/s.
India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka and another
6; and

3.
Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and others
7.

Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available

on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a private

complaint against the petitioners and others on 13.04.2017

before the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate. Basing on the said complaint, the learned

Magistrate referred the matter to the police. Accordingly,

the police registered Crime No.98 of 2017 on 28.06.2018 for

the offences under
Sections 406
,
and
120B
of the IPC.

The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed
2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 447
(1989) 2 SCC 132
(2003) 4 SCC 139
the final report on 28.05.2018 referred the matter as 'false'.

On 13.11.2018, respondent No.2 filed protest petition

invoking the provisions under
Section 202
read with 151 of

the
Code of Criminal Procedure
, 1973 (for short, 'the

Cr.P.C
.'). Along with the protest petition, he filed

documents. The learned Magistrate after going through the

sworn statements of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.13 held

that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and

took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners, by

its order dated 19.11.2019.

7. It is relevant to extract the order passed by the

learned Magistrate, which reads as follows:

"By considering the sworn statement of
complainant i.e., PW1, PW2 and Ex.P1 to P13
found a prima facie case against the petitioner.
Hence cognizance of offence taken against A1 to
A3 only for the offence U/s.420, 406 and 120(B)
of
IPC
.

As there is no prima facie case made out
against the other accused, Crl.M.P. is dismissed.

Registered as C.C.No.17248 of 2019 against
the A1 to A3. Issue summons to A1 to A3. Call
on 11.02.2020."

Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners filed
Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 invoking the provisions of

Section 397
of the Cr.P.C. before the learned I Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, and the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition on

19.02.2020 holding that the main grievance of the

petitioner is that Ex.P.1 was fabricated one, whereas

respondent No.2 claims that he paid huge amount by way

of cash and also through RTGS in respect of transaction

pursuant to Ex.P.1 and the real facts as to whether there

were any transaction between the petitioners and

respondent No.2 under agreement of sale-Ex.P.1 will come

into light after full-fledged trial and that no prejudice will

be caused to the petitioners as they will be given an

opportunity to cross-examine respondent No.2.

8. The core contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners before this Court is that as per the Forensic

Science Laboratory report dated 28.04.2021, the agreement

of sale executed on Hundred Rupees non-judicial stamp

paper and the said stamp paper itself is a fabricated

document and basing upon the said fabricated/created

document, he is not entitled to prosecute the petitioner.

Whereas, the specific case of respondent No.2 is that he
had paid substantial amounts pursuant to the agreement

of sale by way of cash and also through RTGS and RTGS

receipts and other documents are enclosed along with the

protest petition and the petitioners with a dishonest

intention cheated respondent No.2 and sold some of the

plots to the third parties.

9. Whether respondent No.2 has paid any amount to the

petitioners or to the other persons at the instance of the

petitioners, whether the amounts transferred through

RTGS pertaining to the agreement of sale dated

12.03.2013, whether agreement of sale and other

documents relied upon by respondent No.2 are genuine or

not, are disputed facts and the same cannot be adjudicated

by this Court in the criminal petition and the same has to

be decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial only.

10. It is pertinent to mention that respondent No.2 filed a

suit in O.S.No.223 of 2023 seeking specific performance of

agreement of sale dated 12.03.2013 against the petitioners

and other defendants on 16.11.2022, much after filing of

the private complaint dated 13.04.2017, against the

petitioners. It is trite law that mere pendency of civil cases

between the parties does not bar to invoke criminal
jurisdiction provided the allegations disclose the

commission of a cognizable offence. In the case on hand,

the allegations made in the suit in O.S.No.223 of 2023 as

well as allegations made in C.C.No.17248 of 2019 are

different and distinctive. Moreover, petitioner No.2 filed a

complaint and the same was numbered as C.C.No.9582 of

2021, which is subsequent to the filing of private complaint

by respondent No.2.

11.
In
Deepak Gaba
supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that in the absence of factual allegations establishing

the essential ingredients of
Section 405
IPC such as

entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or conversion in

violation of law or contract a mere monetary dispute or an

allegedly wrong demand does not constitute an offence

under
Sections 405
/
IPC. It further emphasized that

criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as

instruments of harassment or vengeance, and when

allegations in the complaint and pre-summoning evidence,

even if accepted on their face, do not disclose the

commission of an offence or are absurd and inherently

improbable, the High Court must exercise its inherent

powers under
Section 482
Cr.P.C to quash such
proceedings.

12. In Thiyagarajan Aniayampati Sivaswamy supra, the

Telangana High Court quashed the cognizance order of the

Special Judge for Economic Offences on the ground that it

was cryptic and passed without application of mind. The

Court reiterated that issuing process and summoning an

accused is a serious judicial act which requires the

Magistrate/Special Court to record satisfaction, even

briefly, that a prima facie case exists. Mere mechanical or

bald orders stating that cognizance is taken are

insufficient. Relying on various Supreme Court precedents,

the Court held that non-speaking orders at the stage of

cognizance burden courts with unnecessary trials and

cause undue harassment to accused. Directions were

issued to trial courts in Telangana to ensure that orders

under
Sections 156(3)
Cr.P.C., cognizance on charge

sheets, protest petitions, and committals must briefly

reflect judicial satisfaction. Consequently, the impugned

order was set aside, with liberty to the Special Judge to

pass a fresh, reasoned order.

13. In Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni supra, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that when a petition seeks quashing of
an FIR together with the charge-sheet and the cognizance-

taking order, if any, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ("BNSS") is invoked, the High

Court (or Division Bench) has jurisdiction to entertain and

mould such relief, so long as the requisite facts are on

record and the court is satisfied that quashing is warranted

in the circumstances.

14.
In
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.
supra, the Supreme

Court held that if the complainant's grievance is merely

that a sum of money is due and payable, the proper remedy

is to file a civil suit for recovery and not a criminal

complaint alleging cheating or criminal breach of trust. The

Court noted that
in that case
no civil suit had been filed

and even the period of limitation for such recovery

appeared to have expired. The Court further emphasised,

while concluding, that despite the replacement of the

Indian Penal Code
, 1860 by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, courts have continued to show a casual approach in

failing to appreciate the fine distinction between the

offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

15. In Priyanka Srivastava supra, the Supreme Court

cautioned against the routine and irresponsible filing of
applications under
Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. It was held that

such applications must be supported by an affidavit duly

sworn by the applicant to ensure accountability, and the

Magistrate, in appropriate cases, may verify the truth and

veracity of the allegations. The Court observed that many

such applications are filed mechanically to harass

individuals, including those discharging statutory duties,

and stressed that criminal courts cannot be misused as

instruments for settling scores.

16.
In
Thota Papi Reddy
supra, the erstwhile High Court

of Andhra Pradesh, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in
India Carat (P) Ltd.
supra, held that

even if the police report under
Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C

concludes that no case is made out, the Magistrate is not

bound by such conclusion and can, in exercise of powers

under
Section 190(1)(b)
, independently apply his mind to

the material collected during investigation, take cognizance,

and issue process against the accused, without being

obliged to follow the procedure under
Sections 200
and
Cr.P.C.

17.
In
Roshanlal Agarwal
supra, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that at the stage of issuing process under
Section 204
CrPC, the Magistrate is only required to be

satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding,

and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.

It

was further clarified, following
U.P. Pollution Control Board v.

Mohan Meakins Ltd.
and
Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B.
, that

there is no legal requirement for the Magistrate to record

detailed reasons while issuing summons, and the process

cannot be quashed merely because the order taking

cognizance is not a speaking order.

18. It is relevant to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya

Kumar G.
S. 8
, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the

well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give

rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that

availing a civil remedy does not bar the initiation of

criminal prosecution.

The Court relied heavily on

precedents like
Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B.
and

Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal
, to reiterate

that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely

because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties.

In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the

pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing
(2020) 14 SCC 552
criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations

disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed

that many acts of cheating occur in the context of

commercial or financial transactions, and such a "civil

profile" does not strip the act of its "criminal outfit."

The

Court also referred to
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
and

Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi
), which held that

quashing of FIRs under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. should be

limited to rare and exceptional cases. It emphasized that

just because a transaction involves a commercial or

monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule out

criminal intent or proceedings. Ultimately, the Court

concluded that the High Court had erred in quashing the

criminal proceedings, stressing that criminal cases must

proceed as per the
Cr.P.C
. and cannot be halted solely due

to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or

authority of the civil forum.

19. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar supra, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that the inherent powers under
Section 482

Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly,

with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure

the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh
evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be

applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at

face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any

offence. The case on hand is not the rarest of rare cases to

exercise powers of this Court under
Section 482
of Cr.P.C.

to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.17248 of 2019.

20. It is relevant to mention that in the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sonu Gupta v. Deepka Gupta
9,

it was held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the

Magistrate is required only to see whether a prima facie

case is made out and he is not required to evaluate the

sufficiency of evidence or undertake a detailed inquiry into

the merits. If the Magistrate, at the stage of cognizance,

enters into analysis the evidence or evaluates the defence,

it would amount to premature adjudication, which is

impermissible in law.

21. It is pertinent to mention that in
Kamal Shivaji

Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra
10, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that at the stage of cognizance and summoning,

the Magistrate is required only to ascertain whether a

prima facie case exists for proceeding against the accused;
(2015) 3 SCC 424)
(2019) 14 SCC 350
he is not required to evaluate the merits or sufficiency of

the material, nor to determine whether it would ultimately

lead to conviction.

22. It is also relevant to mention that in
State of Gujarat

v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
11, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that at the stage of cognizance on a police

report, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that

sufficient ground exists to proceed, and not to apply a strict

standard of proof or consider possible defences.

Interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction by

examining merits at this nascent stage was erroneous.

Accordingly, the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court

was set aside and the Magistrate's order taking cognizance

of the supplementary charge-sheet and issuing summons

was restored, with a direction for the accused to appear

and the trial to proceed in accordance with law.

23. In plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court

specifically held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the

Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that sufficient

grounds exists for proceeding further and to see whether a

prima facie case is made out against the accused and the
(2019) 20 SCC 539
Magistrate is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of

evidence or undertake a detailed enquiry into the merits of

the case, nor is it necessary to examine whether the

material would ultimately result in conviction.

24. It is already stated supra, the learned Magistrate after

going through the statements of PWs.1 and 2 and the

documents which are enclosed along with protest petition

i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.13, specifically held that there is a prima

face case against the petitioners and accordingly took

cognizance. The learned Sessions Judge, upon due

consideration confirmed the said order by giving specific

reasons and dismissed the Crl.R.P.

25. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles
laid

down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra, this Court

does not find any illegality, irregularity or procedural

impropriety warranting interference with the order passed

by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at

Hyderabad in Criminal R.P.No.259 of 2019 dated

19.02.2020, confirming the order dated 19.11.2019 passed

by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad, or any ground to quash C.C.No.17248 of 2019

to exercise the powers conferred under
Sections 482
of the
Cr.P.C
. and the same is liable to be dismissed.

26. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

However, the presence of the petitioners in C.C.No.17248 of

2019 is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically

required subject to the condition that the petitioners shall

represent through their counsel on each and every date of

hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioners on

the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for their

appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the

matter, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the

trial Court shall decide the matter on own merits,

uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order

or in the impugned order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.259 of 2019 as well

as the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned

Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.2600 of 2019.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:18 .09.2025
L.R. copy to be marked
mar
Note: Issue C.C. in a week.