9 are the employees officers of accused No.
5, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. HPCL .
9156 of 2017 filed by M. Srikanth, the original accused No.
It is further averred by her that, thereafter, she came to know about the existence of a document thereby assigning the rights by M s Banjara Construction Company Pvt.
3, Abid Rasool Khan.
On the basis of the said companyplaint, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the registration of an FIR on 24.11.2010.
6064/2013 came to be filed by accused No.
3, Abid Rasool Khan, was the Managing Director.
3, Abid Rasool Khan was the Managing Director.
Afzaluddin Hassan, possessed the same upon death of his mother, Khairunnisa Begum Saheba as per the oral gift dated 12.12.1966 and deed of companyfirmation of the said oral gift.
It is further averred in the companyplaint, that her father had entered into a development agreement on 25.05.1989 with M s Banjara Construction Company Pvt.
It is further averred by her that after the death of her father, accused No.
277 of 2000 on the file of the Honble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.
Criminal Petition No.
5 HPCL whereas, accused Nos.
3, Abid Rasool Khan.
506 of 2001 on the file of the Honble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.
Criminal Petition No.
4 has been impleaded as a partydefendant in O.S. No.
177/1996, came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC against seven persons including M s Banjara Construction Company Pvt.
1403 of 1999 against M s Banjara Construction Pvt.
It is further the case of the companyplainant, that accused No.
58 of 2001 on the file of the Honble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.
91609161 of 2017 at the instance of the original companyplainant challenge that part of the order vide which the single Judge of the High Court has quashed the companyplaint qua accused Nos.
O.S. No.
337 of 2002 on the file of the Honble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.
4 to sublease the said land in favour of accused No.
8743/2013 was filed by accused No.
Criminal Petition No.
It is submitted that the companytinuation of criminal proceedings against accused No.
With regard to the said cause of action, the companyplainant had also filed Original Suit No.
1989/1996 against accused No.
6609/2013 came to be filed by accused No.
3 in the present case.
Ltd. However, the same was cancelled during his lifetime.
It is the case of the companyplainant, that the said will is registered and said to have been executed on 02.04.1950.
The allegations in the said companyplaint in a nutshell is that the house bearing No.
O.S. No.
1 was number the sole beneficiary by inheritance and that the property had devolved upon the companyplainant and her sisters.
3107/2008 permitting accused No.
Ltd., there is numberreference with regard to the other proceedings.
1 had also created another forged and fabricated document styled as deed of companyfirmation Hiba Bil Musha dated 08.03.1990 vide which the property is orally gifted to accused No.
4, M. Srikanth, who is the appellant in the criminal appeal arising out of SLP Crl.
3 and 4.
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been allowed, have approached this Court.
The criminal appeals arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
It appears, that various criminal petitions came to be filed before the High Court.
4 companyld number have been distinguished from the case as against accused Nos.
1 on 29.08.1989 and also handed over physical possession thereof.
It was the case of the companyplainant, that upon death of her father, Afzaluddin Hassan, the said property was inherited by her as well as her three sisters and accused No.
1989 of 1996 against accused No.
506 of 2001 only on 30.10.2009.
The criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
4, challenges that part of the order by which the single Judge of the High Court has rejected his application under Section 482 of the Cr.
7 and 8 are the attesting witnesses.
Further, it is the case, that accused No.
6 and accused No.
311/2010 of P.S., Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.
Accused No.
The companyplainant had filed a private companyplaint against nine persons including accused No.
The companyplainants sisters had filed O.S. No.
3 and others for permanent injunction.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition, accused No.
Accused No.
9156/2017.
By the impugned Order, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petitions of all the applicants except accused Nos.
4, so also the original companyplainant, being aggrieved by the impugned Order by which the petitions of accused Nos.
4 also ought to have been quashed.
5 HPCL and its officers, accused No.
For the said incident another companyplaint vide Crime No.
8, G. V. Prasad.
1, her brother.
O.S. No.
Criminal Petition No.
1, Akramuddin Hasan, who had falsely created a will in Urdu purported to be executed by their paternal grandmother, Khairunnisa Begum Saheba, in favour of their parents Afzaluddin Hassan and Liaquathunnisa Begum for their lifetime and vested remainder to accused No.
239 of 2004 on the file of the Honble XI ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad.
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
3 and O.S. No.
O.S. No.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the original companyplaint.
6047/2013 was filed by accused No.
6, S.K. Srui and accused No.
9, R. Umapathi.
P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.
With respect to the said transaction, two original suits were already filed, one by the companyplainant and another by her sisters.
7, Khaja Mohiuddin and accused No.
351102 at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, originally belonged to Afzaluddin Hassan, the father of the companyplainant, who died on 28.05.1996.
1, posing himself to be the owner of the premises, on the basis of the alleged oral will and deed of companyfirmation, created a registered lease on 01.12.2008, bearing document No.
R. GAVAI, J. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
Both these appeals arise out of the companymon Judgment Signature Not Verified and Order passed by the single Judge of High Court of Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.10.21 Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the 163044 IST Reason State of Andhra Pradesh dated 01.06.2017.
1 and their sisters so also the other parties.
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
It is further the case of the companyplainant in the companyplaint, that her brother accused No.
Ltd. and accused No.
