The High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT No.1 2. M.A.Shahid, S/o M.A.Majed, aged 42 years, Occ, Lecturer, R/o Munipampula village Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 54 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramannapet against the Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 and 2. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all and further proceedings including appearance of the -Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No. 54 ot 2020 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramannapet pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A MUJEEB, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. S MADH/\VI, Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 none appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER a. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.75 ot 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.54 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramannapet, arising out of Crime No.135 of 2019 of Ramannapet Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District, registered for the offences undei- Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

2. Heard Mr. M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.tiladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. lnspite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2-de facfo complainant. Perused the record

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the de facto complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of various extents of land in Sy.Nos.234lAN1, 2341AN312, B4|AA2 and B4lA1 situated at Munipamula Village, Ramannapet l\4andal, Yadadri-Bhongir District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'), having acquired the same through his ancestors. The petitioners trespassed into the land of de facto complainant and wilfully cut down trees without his permission, 2 causing damage to the property. Basing on the saicl complaint, a case in crime No.135 of 2019 was registered against ttre petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was file,d. cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.i;4 of 2O2O for the aforesaid offences

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits thirt the petitioners are innocent and have nothing to do with the offences alleged. Both the parties are relatives and there are disputes between them regarding the ancestral property. Originally, one Abdul Gafoor was rhe original owner of the ancestral property. After his death, ancestral p"operty was equally partitioned among the petitioners herein and the father of lhe de facto complainant. Even though the petitioners are in possr.,ssion of the subject land since 2018 and are having pattedar passbooks in their favour, the de facto complainant is disturbing their possession with an intention to grab the said property. Since the petitioners are thr: owners of subject land, the question of petitioners trespassing into thr:ir own land do not arise. No material is produced either by the de factc complainant or the prosecution to show that the de facto complainant is the owner of the subject land. Even any civil suit is not filed by the d= facto complainant against the petitioners seeking injunction in respect of the subject land. Though the de faclo complainant has foisted the present complaint 3 against the petitioners with all false allegations, the Police, without conducting proper investigation have filed charge sheet. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a frt case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For proper adjudication of the matter, Sections 447 and 427 of lpC are extracted hereunder:

447. Punishment for criminal trespass_- Whoever commits criminal trespass sha// be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

427. Mischief causing damage to the amount af fifty rupees.- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes /oss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shalt be punished with impriionment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

7. The record discloses that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are the family members and there are ongoing disputes 4 r--\ between them with regard to ancestral property. Ttre said disputes are purely civil in nature. on a bare perusal of the compl rint, it is evident that the date and time of the alleged incident was not mentioned by the de facto complalnant. Even the extent of the land claimed to be owned by the de facfo complainant has not been specified, apart from merely mentioning survey numbers. lt is stated in the charge sheet that when the de facto complainant visited the village on 22.1C 2019, LW_2/tVohd Mynoddien informed him about the alleged incicent of petitioners trespassing into the subject land. Hence, it is evidenl that the allegations in the complaint are purely hearsay. Even test ident fication parade was not conducted by the Police to establish the identity of petitioners, as is evident from the charge sheet.

8. Apart from that, no material is produced by the trosecution to show that the de facto complainant is the owner and possr>ssor of the subject land or to prove that the petitioners have trespassed into the subject land of de facto complainant and committed mischief cau;ing damage to the property, except stating that they have cut down trees. Even no photographs were produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioners have trespassed into the subject land and have cut down trees. ln the absence of any material establish ing the de facto complainant as the owner of the subject land, the question of petitioners frErry trespassing into his land does not arise. lf really tne de facto complainant is in possession of the subject land and petitioners are interfering with his possession, he would have filed a civil suit against them. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no civil suit is filed by the de facfo complainant till date. lnstead of pursuing civil remedies, the de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners herein, colouring a civil dispute into criminal offence.

9. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos..l and 2 in C.C.No.54 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Ramannapet. \ To, Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ,ITRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI D PUTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER Bhongir District. '1 . The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramannapet' Yadadri- Yadadri-Bhongir District'

2. The Station House Officer, Ramannapet P'S ' 3. One CC to SRI M A MUJEEB Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana louTl Two CD CoPies

5. MKN/9h (tr HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER CRLP.No.75 of 2022 .a (: ,) ) ! r tl.I 2025 '1. i-\ / ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION v \ )+ b 1 >\