Anilakumari v. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and others

Prosecutor, High Court for State of Telingana at Hyderabad.

2. Mohammed Asad,, S/o. Late lqbal, aged about 33 years, Occ. Cab Driver' Caste Muslim, R/o. H.No.9-2-7416, Abra nagar, Hasmathpet, Old Boinapally, Hyderabad (As per chargesheet) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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.173 of 2024 on the file Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate at Bhongir against the Petitioners No.1 to 3 /Accused No.2 to 4 and be pleased. I l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorarrdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in c.c. No.173 of 2024 on the file ble Additional Judicial Fir::t class Magistrate at Bhongir against the petitioners No.1 to 3 /Accused No.2 to 4 including personal appearance of the petitroners No.1 to 3 /Accused No.2 to 4 pernding disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the 1'ollowing: ORDER THE HONOURBLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 735 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2024 on the Iile of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir.

2. Heard Mr. B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nouman, learned counsel representing Mr. M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additionai Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were implicated falsely in the crime. The Investigating Officer simply extracted the allegations made in the complaint and Iiled charge sheet. Respondent No.2 in his complaint or the Investigation Officer in the charge sheet has not specifically mentioned whether respondent No.2 is owner of the subject property. When there are no speciflc allegations in the complaint or in the charge sheet that the petitionerlhave trespassed into the open.olot located at the J. ) outskirts of Kondamudugu village and damaged the boundary stone, the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not applicable against them.

3. i. In srrpport of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

1. Anilakumari v. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and othersl; and

2. Joseph Akkara and others v' State of Kerala rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police and another2.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 has specifically stated in his complaint that he is ownr-'r of thc property i.e, open plot bearing No.386 located at the outsklrts of Kondamadugu village covered in Sy.Nos.562, 565 and 583. admeasuring 477 sq. yards, and the petitioners trespassed into his land and damaged the boundary stones. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the IPC are attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that LWs.2 and 3 are also specifically stated before the Investigating Officer that the petitioners have entered into the plot of respondent No.2 and darnaged the boundary stones, and the same has to be | 2019 scc onl-ine K€r 1732 2 2o2o sc<l ont,ine Ker 13847 / ./ adjudicated during t}re course of trial. Hence, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l73 of 2024.

5. l,earned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 173 of 2024.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after pcrusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on Oa.lO.2O23, wherein he specifically stated that he is the owner of the property, i.e., plot No. 386 situated in Sy.Nos.562, 565 and 583 at the outskirts of Kondamadugu village, and the petitioners have criminally trespassed into the above said property and removed the boundary stones. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation by recording the statements of the witnesses, filed charge sheet, wherein LWs.2 and 3 stated that respondent No.2 is the owner of the properlSr and the petitioners have criminally trespassed into the plot of respondent No.2 and demolished the boundary stones. There are specihc allegations are levelled against the petitioners. 'Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not has to be decided after full-fledged trial oniy and this 1 Court is nc,t inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.l73 of \ 2024

7. Insofzrr as the other contentions raised b1' the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire allegations are levelled against the petitioners are civil in nature and respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent Civil Court to establish his rights bt relying upon the above said judgments supra are concerned, the same are not applicable to thc facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they criminally trespassed into the plot ofrespondent No.2 and removed the boundary stones. B. For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not lind any ground to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at tlhongir.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismisserl Misc ellaneous applications, pending if anlr, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The First Class Judicial Magistrate at Bhongir 2. The Station l-louse Officer, Bibinagar Police Station' Rachakonda' 3. Two CCs to -he Public Prosecutor' High Court for State of Telingana at Hyderabad.[OUT] ,)/

4. One CC to Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPtes HIGH COURT DATED:07104t2025 .B 1ll5 ; . 2 3 luri 295 o( : (: Pt. I Clt t t t ORDER CRLP.No.73S c>f 2025 / //t7. /o b /1 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED