The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Firasat Hussain, Sio Quader Hussain Aged N/ajor, Occ: Business, Rl/o H.No.6-2-1, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DE.FACTO COMPLAINANT Petitio n der Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the M morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to all for the records and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accu ed Nos. 1 to 4 in CC.No.114B7 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Chief etropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad LA. NO: 1 OF 20 Petition u der 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 extend the interim order dated 0210212023 passed in Crl.P.No.1045 ol 2023 l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C prqying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. '1 to 4 in CC.No.11487 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan lVagistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition undbr 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 extend the interim Order dated 1O-O7 -2023 passed in Crl.P.No.1045 of 2023 l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 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 extend the interim order dated 2510412025 passed in Crl P No 1045 of 2023 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A K MUKHEED, Advocate for the Petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Ms.U.Nandini, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Srinivas, for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1045 ot 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings-against them in C C.No.11487 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad

2. The brief facts of the case as per defacto complainant are that he is one of the owners of the ancestral property along with his mother, sister and wife. On information that the accused are having experience in construction, they have entered into a development agreement with accused persons and their team, jointly executed in their favour vide document No.2255 of 2018, dated 29.05 2018. Subsequently he came to know that A2 to 41 1 are illegally constructing at the site in total violation of the sanction plan, then he approached the Court of law. Despite the Court order, the A2 to A1 1 in connivance with 41 failed to stop their illegal act of construction and also trying to illegally usurp the property of minor over 160 sq. yards and trespassed into their property with sole intention to proceed with their illegal construction and all the accused threatened them with dire consequences to withdraw the cases against them. Hence he 2 lodged a complaint before the Saifabad police Station, which was registered as crime No.72g of 201g for the offences punishabre under sections 447, 427,506 read with 34 of lndian penal Code.

3. Heard Mr.l\rl.A.K.tVlukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners and lVIs.U.Nandini, learned counsel representing lVlr.G. Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Smt.S.l\4adhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent-State. perused the record

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the builders and they entered rnto development agreement to develop the property, with respondent No.2 and his family members, whereas the petitioner No.4 is a student and pursuing his studies. The respondent No.2 after execution of Development Agreement cum General power of Attorney received huge amount towards advance and handed over the possession of the property. Later the petitioners applied for sanction plan and obtained the plan and started construction over the property. With intention to extract money the respondents lodged a false complaint before the lVlunicipal Corporation to demolish the construction and created hurdles for ongoing smooth construction as per the sanctioned plan. I 3

5. lt is further submitted that petitioners herein filed a writ petition and obtained necessary final orders vide W.p.No.246T3 of 2019 and construction is going on, at this stage the respondent No.2 filed OP for Arbitration. Respondent No.2 also filed another injunction suit pertaining to other land which is nbthing to do with the subject land of the development agreement. The petitioners herein filed W.P.No.'18850 of 2021 and this Court had granted injunction order and the petitioners also filed W.p.No.26888 of 2021 where this Court was pleased to direct the electricity authorities to restore the electricity connection. He further submitted that when the entire property is in peaceful possession of the petitioners trespassing and damaging their own property does not arise. The allegations in the complaint are civil in nature which is given a criminal colour and hence the alleged offences do not attract against the petitioners and no offence is made out against the petitioners. Hence prays the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 4

7. A careful perusal of the record reveals that there is no dispute that the petitioners after obtaining the sanction of building permit order for construction, basing on the Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, have started constructing as per sanctioned plan in the capacity of developers. Further the petitioners being in possession of the land in dispute, as developers, they cannot criminally trespass into their own land. Upon the construction made by the petitioners, GHMC officials have not issued any notice with regard to any deviation of the sanction plan. lt appears that the matter is primarily civil dispute and has no criminal element and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, which is given a criminal colour to a clvil dispute to settle the scores between the parties. Hence, the offences under sections 447, 427 , 506 read with 34 of IPC are not made out and the allegations against the petitioners are not maintainable. However, if there is any grievance 2nd respondent can avail the civil remedy.

8. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the 5 proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 amounts to abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed proceedings against the petitioners/accused

9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.'1 14BZ of 2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan lMagistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. - Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. JAYASREE STANT REGISTRAR S //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER To,

1. The I Additional Chief tvletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, Hyderabad District

2. The Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station , Saifabad, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRI M A K IMUKHEED Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI G SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri MAHESH RAJE, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies Vlvl/kam I I l I I I I I I I i I I i ! HIGH COURT DATED: 1710712025 ORDER CRLP.No.1045 of 2023 o({ 1HE SIA 14: o 14 AIJE zffi * t)C.,.a.4.i.C 1-1..l _ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \