High Court of Telangana · 2025

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 in C.C. No.2022 of 2O20 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Karimnagar and Quash the same against the Petitioners herein. ^Iagistrate, l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners in C.C. No. 2022 of 2020 on the fite of the Court of the Additional Judrcial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar, pending drsposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argun ents of Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadel', Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, H1'derabad on behalf of the State / Respondent No.'l and Sri S.Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate represented Sri P.Sajan Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent No-2. The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE E.V.VENUCTOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.l447 OF 2021 ORDER: The present criminal petition is hled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to quash the criminai proceedings against them in CC No.2O22 of 2A2O on the fi1e of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar.

2. Heard Sri A.Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel lor rhe petitioners, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor lcr the respondent No.1/State and Sri Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sajan Kumar, learncd counsel for the i-espondent No.2.

3. Basing on the allegations lcvelled against the L,c'.itioners in FIR No. 147 of 2O2O dated 20.08.2O20 on the file of i-ir-, r.herpalli Poiice Station, CC No.2O22 of 2O2O on the file of the icar;recl Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnagar i;r the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, ::06 read i.'iiir Section 34 of IPC was registered.

1. The brief facts of the case are thaL on 12.08,2020 at r:i:r,irt i 7.0C hours at Sy.No143 1n Kar:nanpur Village, the I i Page 2 of6 petltroners criminally trespassed into the agricultural iand of the de-facto com plainant and damaged his poles an,l cr-olr worth Rs. 1,OO,0O01- and when the de_facto complainarrt questioneci, they threaterled their agricultural labours with dire consequence to kill. Basing on the said allegations, FIR No. t4?, of 2Cr2O *,as registered. Upon completion of the investigation, charge_sheet was laid in the trial Court and the same is assignec! CC No.2O22 of 2O2O. iand to the rle-facto

5. The present criminal petition is fited try the petitioners challenging the criminal proceedings against them in CC No.2O22 of 2O2O mainly contending that the rie_facto complainant/ 12,,,t re sDondent purchased land adjacen t to tie iaita of the petitioner No. i from Laxman Namilkonda, v,ho scld tl,re complainant by wrongly mentioning tire boundaries an d on 29 . i2 .2A Ig at about 12.30 pM s aicl L,:rxrne r: along with his henchmen and the de-facto complair:.ant illegalt_v trespassed in to the la nd of the petitioners and d.:rmaged thc boundaries and destroved the barbed fencing with the help cf JCB and threatent:d the petitioners with direct conseoucnces. Accordingiy, the pcririone rs sor registered FIR No.l,t i of 2o2 _r dated O1.02.202O for thr: oflcnces punishable under S<.ctions 442. 427 read q.ith Section 34 ci IpC. Apart from todging the sajri Pase 3 of5 complaint, the petitioners also complained to the Commissioner of Poiice stating that the de-facto complainant is trying to grab their property and offering threats to their lives.

6. Since the de-facto complainant with the help of the lst respondent offrcials creating troubles in enjoying their property peacefuily, the petitioners frled OS No.367 of 2O2O on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar seeking perpetual injunction and the same is pending adjudication. Further, the de-facto complainalt l-rled OS No.303 of 2O2O on the hle of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional .Juciicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Karimnagar seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioners and the same is 7 . As per orders of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4942 of 2O2O all further proceedings in FIR No.l47 ol 2O2O r.r,,cl i st aveC Horvever, in utter violation of the said orciers, the i't resp<;ndent officials have haphazardly concluded the investigation anC illec final report, which is numbered as CC No.2O22 oi 2O2O. Fulihcr. Lhc respondent No.1 officials have aiso hled final rcport ir-r FIR No.2 | of 2O2O, lodged by the petitioners, stating that the ciispr.r ie 1s ci.,'il in nature. Page 4 of6

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the pel.itioners that the dispute in question is purely civil in nat.Llre, and the present corrrplaint is filed only with an ulteri)r motive of harassing the petitioners. Even if the contents of r he impugned complaint, statements of witnesses and charge-sheet_ are taken to be true, the offences under Sections 427, 442 and a;O6 read with Section 34 of IPC are not made out by the acts alleged lo have been committed by the petitioners. [n a similar set of fac,ts, this Court quasht:d the proceedings in CC No. 172 of 2O..0 on the hle of the learned Additional Judiciai Magistrate of First Class, Kowur, Nellore District as per orders in Criminal petition N.o.93gg of 201O. In a catena of decisions the Hontrle Suprerne Court had categorically held that -uvhen the crirninai law js malafidei-y initiated by an abuse of process of ia*,, the same ir,r liable to be quashed. Stating thus, the ieained counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to allou, rhe present criminal petitic,n.

9. C)n the other hancl, iearned counsel for ine 2.d respondent ernd learned Assistant public prosr::cutor have vehemently opposed the present crirninal proceed ings .mainly contenciing that Lhe lnvestigai;on revcaied prirna_facir: aliegations against the petitioners and the same needs the test of trial and lrathout doing such exercise. the peritioners cannot be deciarcri Pagc 5 of6 either way at the threshold. Thus, stating they prayed to dismiss the present criminal petition.

10. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is clear that civil cases are filed by both the parties and they are pending for adjudication with regard to boundary disputes. The alleged incident, as complained by the de-facto complainant, had happene d on 12.O8.2O2O at about 17.00 hours however, the complaint in FIR No. 147 of 2O2O r.vas iodgeC on 2O.O8.2O20 i.e. after 8 days of tJle alleged incident. FurLher, OS No.3O3 of 2O2O was flled on 26.08.202O by the de- lacto complainant against the petitioners after registration of the subjecr FiR. The material papers show that the initiation of subject criminal proceedings have been brought to the notice ol 'rhe civii Courl ',r'hiie filing OS No.303 of 2O2O by the de-facto compiainant. Under these circumstances, it can be easilv understoocl that ihe ciispute is purely of civil in nature and the snme is clothed w.ith a criminal nature, which cannot be permitted in vierv of the proposition of law laid down by the lloc'ble -qupremd Ccurt in a catena of decisions particularly in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and othersl' i t9t t IIi 6{).1 Page 6 cl6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that u,herL the criminal proceedings are initiated mereiy to s-^ttle civil ciispr res, the same is nothing but an abuse of process and is liabie to be quzLshed in exercise of the inherent porrers under Section 4g2 o,. Cr.p.C. 1 1. When the above factual matrix is taken into consideration, it can be safely held that a civil dispute is given a crimina,l colour to settle the scores between the parti:s alcl hence, tlle same is liable to be prevented. Accordingly, the present crimina-l petit.ion is ailowed.

72. In the result, the present criminal petitron is allowed quashing the criminal proceedings against the peti.ioners; in CC No.2o22 of 2t't2o on the frie of rhe iearned Additional iudicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar.

13. As a sequei, miscelianeous petitions, ii z-ny, pendirrg, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII \ SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar. The Station House Officer, Kothapally Police Station, Karimnagar District One CC to Sri. Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri P.Sajan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Statr:: of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] 6 Two CD Copies PSK/gh (+ HIGH Court DATED:1 1t0Zt2O2S ORDER GRLP.No.144t ot 2021 c.-;r, -\ l :,, 17 SEP :trUli .,. ..,:. \.' _ .i. \\. .,^ r'...-.. \.--. --:;--_ - ; i C :; ,,' ,,/ ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION p-P L' 6 t