Vadrevu Uma Maheshwar Rao, S/o. Late v. Sheshagiri Rao Aged about

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 call for the records relating to Charge Sheet in C.C No. 3680 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar and quash the same. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in Charge Sheet in C.C.No.3680 ot 2O1B on the file of the Court of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate. Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. ,'na : - '{ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Palle Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner anct l\ills S.Madhavi, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and r one appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -i,Ei4Pi!@/ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI Tto N No.126 of2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr'P C by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in c.c.No.3680 of 2o1B on the file of the learned lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L B. Nagar, arising out of Crime No.347 of 2018 of Medipally Police station, Rachakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 448' 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')'

2. Heard tVlr. A.Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. s.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Notice sent to respondent No 2- defactocomplainantwasreturnedwithanendorsement.unclaimed,. Unclaimed notice is deemed to be proper service of notice. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 2008, the de facto complainant has purchased a plot bearing No.26iA situated in Sy.Nos.201 and 2O2 (hereinafter referred to as 'subject plot') of East Balaji Hills Colony, Boduppal (hereinafter referred to as Society'), from 2 '**#*1 .. .ta X' i one T.Narendra and got registered the same in his rarne vlrle document bearing No.71'12 of 2008. Thereafter, he obtained n€,(ressary permissions from the HMDA and ltlunicipal authorities for constrr rction of house. on

08.04.2018 at 12.00 hours, the petitioners illegally trespassed into the subject plot and closed pillar pits with JCB. When tire neighbouring plot owners reached the spot, on seeing them the petitroners fled away from the scene. Previously also, the petitioners threa!:ned lhe de facto complainant wrth dire consequences as the subject plot belongs to them. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No 347 of 2018 was registered against the petitioners. After completiorr of investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken a nd the case was numbered as C.C. No.3680 of 2018 for the aforesaid o,fences

4. Submissions made by the learned Senior C ounsel appearin q for the petitionerS:

4.1 . The petitioners are innocent and they are no \^ay concerned with the offences alleged. The de faclo complainant has purchased the subject plot from his vendor namely T.Narendra arrd his vendor has obtained LRS ln fact, plot Nos.26-A and 27-A are rot existing in the sanctioned layout and the area in the said plots is i: part of the public road. After grving due notice and opportunity to the de facto complainant's vendor viz., T.Narendra and after conducting due Yxs*3*re I 3 inspection of the land, vlde proceedings dated 28.01 .2019, the HIIDA authorities have revoked the LRS granted earlier. Hence, the question of trespassing into the plot of de faclo complainant plot does not arise

4.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.'1 and 2 ate the President and Additional Secretary of the Society. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the Advisor of Society and the petitioner-accused No.4 is a resident of Colony. Since the Colony people were objecting for raising constructions in the subject plot by making representations since 201 1, the present complaint was foisted by the de faclo complainant against the petitioners with all false allegations, to continue his illegal constructions over the subject land which is earmarked for public road. On a perusal of list of witnesses, it discloses that none of the witnesses are residents of the Colony, hence, their statements cannot be relied upon. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Hence, 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 fit case to quash the 4 . ':,. . 1'}: \ proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition

6. lnitially, charge sheet was filed for the offerrces under Sections 447,427 and 506 rlw. 34 of lPC. However, towards ttre conclusion of the charge sheet, it was stated that the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 4 have committed offences punishable under Sections 448.427 and 506 of lpC

7. For proper adjudication of the matter, Sections 449. 427 and 506 of IPC are extracted hereunder:

448. P u n i sh m ent f o r ho u se-trespass.- Wtoever commits house-frespass sha be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term whicl may extend to one year. or with fine which may extend to one thocsanci rupees, or with both.

427. Mischief causing ctamage to thc amount of f,fty rupees.- Whoever commits mischief and thereby caases /oss or damage to tlrc anount of ftfty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with impris,tnntent of either description for a term whicl nay extend to two years. or with fine, or with both.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits. the olfence of criminal intir,i,latiotl shall be punished wtth imprisonment of either description f<tr a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both lf threat be to cause death or grievous huft, etc.- And if the th,"cat be fo cause death or grievous hur7, or to cause the destructiot, cf any propefty by fir,:, or to cause an offence punishabte t ith deaih or imtr)risonment for life, or with imprisonment for a t,)rm which may extena to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment af either description icr a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with botk. 5

8. Having gone through the record, it is apparent that the alleged incident had happened on 08.04.2018. However, the present complaint was lodged by the de faclo complainant on 30.04.2018 i.e., with a delay of 22 days. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the President, Additional Secretary and Advrsor of the Society The petitioner-accused No.4 is a resident of Colony. The de facto complainant has purchased the subject plot from one T.Narendra in the year 2008. The Colony people, including the petitioners herein, were objecting for raising constructions in the subject plot by making representations since 20'l 'l .

9. A representation, dated 07.09.20'18 was submitted by the petitioners to the HMDA authorities requesting to cancel the LRS and building permissions granted in respect of the subject plot, as it does not form part of the approved layout and was earmarked for public road. On such representation, the HIMDA authorities have issued show cause notices, daled 17.10.2018 and 28.11.2018 to the vendor o'f de facto complainant. Since the said Narendra failed to submit his explanation, revocation order, dated 28.01.2019 was passed revoking the LRS as the subject land is a part of public road and not a regular plot. The Office of t\lunicipality, Boduppal, has issued a notice under Section 344(6) of the 6 \'.,rr#.aflH*J, r,&.::_ -,.i{5:;-: ".. .i:,.iill- : -I \ Telangana Municiparities Act, 1965, to the de facr, comprainant cailing upon to submit his expranation why the buirding pernrssion granted in his favour should not be cancefied. There were ongoir g disputes between the parties with regard to the subject plot.

10. As seen from the statements of witnesses rec.rded under Section 161 of cr-P.c, it is stated by the de facfo comprairrant that the aileged rncident of lrespass was informed to him by LW-3/K.Swamy. But, in his statement, LW-3 stated that some persons have tres tassed into the plot of de facto comprainant and fiiled up pits. LW-4/p.L:kesh arso stated in the similar lines to that of LW-3. LW-3 and LW-4 frr ther stated that on enquiry, they came to know that the alleged incidert was done by the petitioners herein. However, none of the witnesses have identified the petitioners herein as the persons who have conr nitted the aileged offence and test identification parade was not conducled by the porice to establish the identify of accused.

11. Apart from that, Section 448 of lpC deals wth punishment for house lrespass As per the proceedrngs of the HArli,A authorities, it is clearly evident that the subject plot rs a pubilc road. llence, the question of petitioners trespassing into the subject prot does not arise and the offence under Section 448 of lpC is not made out. S;ection 427 of lpC deals with offence of mischief causing damage to procerty. rn the instant trfriryaer:z '-, ..;). '../., ./, 7 case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners that they have committed any mischief causing damage to property, hence, the offence under Section 427 ot IPC is also not made out. With regard to Section 506 of lPC, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners as to in what manner they have threatened the de facto complainant or others causing criminal intimidation.

12. From the above, it is clearly evident that the de facto complainant has purchased the subject plot from his vendor, which was earmarked for public road and not a part of approved layout. lnstead of pursuing civil remedies against his vendor, lhe de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners herein, colouring a civil dispute into criminal offence. Therefore, 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.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.'l to 4 in C.C.No.36g0 of 2018 on the file of the learned lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. B \.:ill Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sherll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \!- bECT ION OFFICER ( The lll lt4etropolitan [vlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at LB.Nagar. The XX Metropolitan [t/agistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgil The Statior House Officer, Medipalli Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. One CC to Sri. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate [OPUCl. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State rf Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Ccpies. YJR/GII To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 W HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 I : I ORDER CRLP.No.126 of 2022 ; i i:[I 205 _.! ALLOWING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITICIN. \ \,\