NAYAKWADIGOPALA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.,') by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, praying this Court to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.396 of 2023 on the file of the Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, alleged for the offences under Ss. 406, 420 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

(2.) Heard Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Jaggari Manikanta Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Jella Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that on 7/6/2023, the complainant - Sri S.Prakash, Managing Partner of Anmol Developers lodged a complaint alleging that while he was engaged in the business of Real Estate and during the course of the said business, he came across Mr.Nayakwadi Gopala Krishna, who revealed his interest in Real Estate and represented that he and his family members are absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.08 guntas in Sy.No.163, Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.160, Ac.2.07 guntas in Sy.No.163/U, Ac.2.08 guntas in Sy.No.163/1/A/B, total admeasuring Ac.8.23 guntas situated at Rameswaram Banda Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District by virtue of Sale Deed bearing Nos.19695/2015, 16814/2015, 1293/1983 and 2244/1982. Further, Nayakwadi Gopala Krishna insisted him to develop the subject property into residential duplex houses and as a result Development Agreementcum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing document No.1524/2019 was executed by Mr.Nayakwadi Gopala Krishna in favour of respondent No.2 and accordingly, respondent No.2 has became the absolute owner and possessor of the aforesaid property. In the complaint, it is also stated that the subject property was in an uneven and undulate condition and there was also huge pit on the subject property and after spending a huge amount of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 for leveling the subject property, respondent No.2 was subjected to hardships. Further, all of a sudden after applying for all the permissions, the petitioners herein opposed for developing the said property and the said action of Mr.Gopala Krishna and his family led respondent No.2 to mental agony and huge financial loss, which cannot be compensated in any manner. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have suppressed the fact that the subject property was under mortgage with APSFC (Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation) vide document No.18688 of 2017. Basing on the above complaint, F.I.R. has been registered and the petitioners herein were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4.