The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Vemuri Nagalatha, Wo Krishna Prasad. Aged about 3g years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No. 8-302, Potluri Residency, Road No 2. CTO Colony, Gurunanak nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Sate of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Telangana. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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. 654 of 2020 on the file of XXIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, in so far as the Petitioners Accused No 1 1 and 12 are concerned. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 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 all further proeeedings in C.C. No. 654 of 2020 on the file of XXIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, in so far as the Petitioners/Accused No 11 and 12 are concerned including their appearance pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3510 OF 2021 Between: 1 2 Kotagiri Thanmai, Wo Mahadevuni Sampath Kumar, Aged about 21 years, Occ Student, R/o Near Shivalayam, Bibi Nagar, (v) and (m), Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana. Mahadevuni Sampath Kumar, S/o Somappa, Aged about 31 years, Occ Business, R/o Near Shivalayam, Bibi Nagar, (v) and 'im), Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana ...P ETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.7 & 8 AND

1. Smt. Vemuri Nagalatha, Wo Krishna Prasad, Aged about 39 years, Occ Business, R/o Plot No. 8-302, Potluri Residency, Road No 2 CTO Colony, Gurunanak nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Sate of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Telangana' High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition uncler 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. 654 OF 2020 on the file of xxlv Addl. uetropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, in so far as the Petitioners/Accused No 7 and B are concerned. :2O 21 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 extend the interim order passed in lA No-112021 in CrlP NO.3510/2021 daled 281041202 until further orders. NO 21 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 all further proceedings in c.c. No. 654 of 2020 on the file of Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, in so far as the Petitioners/Accused No 7 and I are concerned including their appearance pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners in both the CRLPs and SRI E GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2 in both the CRLPs and none appeared forthe Respondent No.1 in both the CRLPs. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PBTITION 1589 and 3510 OF 2O2L COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.1589 of 2021 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos. 11 and 12 in C.C.No.654 of 2O2O on the file of the learned XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hayathnagar (for short, "the trial Court") for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 465, 468, 471, 447, 427, 120(8) r /w 34 of I.P.C. and pass such other order or orders.

2. Criminal Petition No.351O of 2021 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.7 and B in C.C.No.654 of 2O2O on the file of the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 465, 468,47t,447, 427, 120(8) rlw 34 of I.P.C. and pass such other order or orders. For the sake of convenience, both the Criminal Petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order. ( 2

3. Heard Mr.Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 2-State.

4. The brlef facts of the case are that on 13.09.2OL8 at 1O:OO hours respondent No.1/ de facto complainant filed a complaint stating that she got married in the year 2OO2; that prior to her marriage, she along with her family, resided near Sushma theatre and that they were two female children to their pa-rents; that, her father Sri Maddukuri Venkateshwar Rao has expired in the year 2OO4 due to ill-health; that during the year , 2OOT she and her sister Padmalatha shared the property; that one land situated in Sy.No.2B1 Pa.rt admeasuring 5951 Sq.yards at Lrdaya Sai Nagar Colony, Bagh Hayathnagar got to her share; that the said propergr was registered on 11.O4.2OO7 through Released Deeds vide Document Nos.4O39 /2OOT , 4O4O I2OOT , 4O4l /2OO7 , 4O42/2OOT ,and aOaS/2OO7; thereafter they have constructed compound wall surrounding her land and also erected the gate; that from then, she and her husband Krishna Prasad were in peaceful possession of the land; that they have appointed a watchman by name Ravinder Reddy to the said land; that whileso, on I2l L3.O9.2O18 at 02:OO hours, their watchman 1 3 Ravinder Reddy called her over phone and informed them that some persons c€une to their land along with JCB and damaged the compound wall, gate and criminally trespassed into the land. It is stated that respondent No.l had informed the watchman to enquire about their names and J.C.B. number and send them away from the land. The watchman informed that there are (1) female and (07) male persons among the persons who trespassed into the land. Then, the complainant informed him to give the phone to that lady and talked with her over phone for which, the lady revealed her name as Kotagiri Usharani and stated that the land belongs to them; that they have purchased the land from one Siraj, Samad, Ghouse, Abdul Khadar through the mediation of one Kumar Swamy and Reddy; that they are levelling the land, for which, the complainant informed her to stop the work; that on

13.09.2018 at 08:11 hours, the complainant along with her husband came to their land and noticed that some part of compound wall was damaged through JCB bearing No.AP29 BT 8646; that on enquiry, she c€une to know that her father Venkateshwara Rao has purchased the said land from one Syed Omer in the yea-l. 1988 and 1994; thereafter the family members of said Syed Omer i.e., Siraj, Samad, Ghouse in collusion with I \U"hrrrrri, Kumari Swamy and Reddy, with an evil intention to . I I I , 4 grab the land, created forged documents and got registered the land in favour of one Tanmayi Dlo.Usharani by way of a Gift Deed; that the husband of Tanmayi by name Sampath Kumar along with JCB Driver Mallesh trespassed into their land, damaged sorne part of compound wall and levelled the tand; that other persorrs namely Thoufiq, Sohel and Nakka Mahesh have co-operated with all the above persons in leveling the land. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered.

5. Learne,l counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused Nos.ll and L2 are the Driver and JCB Driver and that they helped the other accused in leveling the' land allegedly belonging to respondent No.1; that accused Nos.7 and B are neither the makers of the alleged forged documents nor the beneficiaries to the lands. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel relied on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and anotherr and Mukesh & Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Othersz and seeks to allow these Criminal Petitions

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the matters requires to be tried and interference of this Court, at this I I (zots) 7 Supreme court cases 581 2 Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12354/2024 (- 5 stage, is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and relying on the decision passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Others3r wherein it is held that the Courts must avoid premature staying of quashing of criminal trials at the premature stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to be adduced before the appropriate trial Court. Therefore, this Court, without making any observation on the merits or demerits of the case, is inclined to direct the petitioners/accused Nos.7, B, 11 and 12 to file an application seeking to discharge them before the trial Court by raising the contentions raised in this Criminal Petition. Upon filing of such an application, the trial Court shall examine and pass appropriate orders, as per law. B. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners/accused Nos.7, 8, 11 and 12 is dispensed with in C.C.No.654 of 2O2O before the trial Court when 3 zozqscc on Line sc3726 \ \ \ ( 6 represented by their counsel on record. The appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioners stating that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by them in any manner. However, the petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when their presence is required. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear when the court directs, this order dispensing with their appearance stands vacated automatically. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. F f To, Sd/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO T REGISTRAR ASS / //TRUE COPY// , SECTION OFFICER

1. The XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda. 3. one cc to sRl MALIPEDD| sRtNlvAS REDDY Advocate topucl 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies GR/PSL . -& HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 i / COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.1589 AND 3510 of 2021 'rne .:;'{ (. ri t ri; itrtr r, * DISMISSING BOTH THE CRLPs \D