The High Court · 2025

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon ;;;"g the arguments of Sri P Pratap, Advocate for the petitione, tttr. i trtadhavi, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos..1 anA Z anO of Sri G.Kiran Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 "no The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PET tTlo N No.'t085 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C.No.1078 o'f 2021 on the file of the learned XXll Additional Metropolltan lt/lagistrate, Cyberabat at Medchal, registered for the offences under Sections 447,341, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

02. Heard Mr.P.Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.'l to 3 and [/lrs S Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-respondent Nos l and 2 as well as tVlr.G.Kiran Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No-3 and perused the record'

03. Brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant purchased Plot Nos.30B, 309, 310, 315, 316 and 3'17 admeasuring 333.33 square yards each total admeasuring 2000 square yards in Sy.No.149, Jayabheri Park, Kompally on the name of his wife Smt.K.tVleenakshi, from Peri Gopala Krishna and others under registered sale deeds Thereafter, he got regularized the said plots under LRS On26'O7 '2021 at about 10.30 hours, the complainant with a view to flatten the 2 land called JCB and started work. ln the meanwhile, the accused persons illegally tress passed into the above said land and obstructed the JCB from charming the land and also abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences- Hence, complainant requested for necessary action against the accused persons.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences. He further submits that there is civil dispute vide E.P.No.211 of 2006 in O.S.No.242 of '1986 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L,B.Nagar, wherein, the de faclo complainant has filed E.A.No.166 of 2007 for restoration of the possession of the subject land. The de facto complainant-respondent No.3 has filed the present complaint by suppressing the material fact i.e' the above civil proceedings. The de faclo complainant is not in physical possession of the disputed properties as on the date of filing of this complaint. The petitioners have already lodged complaints, dated 08.'10.2021 and 26.11.2021 on the file of the very same Police Station i.e. Station House Officer, P-S. Pet- Basheerabad, but said complaints were closed by referring them as 'civil in nature', in view of pending civil dispute The 3 respondent No.3 is trying to convert civil dispute into criminal case. All the allegations levelled against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 are civil in nature. Hence, he prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3.

05. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side lt is apparent on the face of the record that there is civil dispute vlde E'P No 211 of 2006 in O.S No.242 of 1986 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B Nagar. The de facto complainant also filed an E.A. in the above E P for restoration of the possession of the subject land. 4

07. As stated supra, there is a civil dispute in respect of subject land Even though, complainant filed E A agitating his rights in the above civir dispute, the same is conceared in the present complaint. The said suppression of material fact goes to the roots of the case and if the said fact is disclosed in the complaint itself, the police would have the knowledge of involvement of civil dispute.

08. Except stating that the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 3 have abused the complainant, there are no specific instances or descriptive particulars as to in what manner the petitioners-accused Nos .l to 3 have abused and in what way they threatened the complainant amounting lo criminal intimidation

09. lt is evident from record that. earlier the petitioners have filed two complaints, but the same were closed by the police referring them as 'civil in nature,. However. in order to prove the criminality or veracity of allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos..1 to 3, the driver of the JCB, who is expected to know about the alleged incident, was not examined by the Police. The said lacuna in the investigation amounts to fatal to the case of prosecution. 5

10. On a careful scrutiny of entire charge sheet averments, to prove the basic allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged offences, there is no single independent witness examined by the Police Out of seven list of witnesses cited, three witnesses are complainant and his family members, who appears to be interested witnesses. The remaining witnesses are two panch witnesses and two lnvestigating Officers. Even though L.Ws.2 and 3 are shown as eye witnesses, they are none other than the relatives of the complainant. Therefore, it appears that the complainant filed the present criminal case against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, only to settle his personal scores. As observed supra, the driver of the JCB was not examined by the Police which amount to a grave discrepancy in the case of the prosecution.

11. ln Sfate of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhaian Lal and othersl the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held that: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Articte 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or ' rggz scc (suPP) 1 335 6 othenuise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possib/e to lay down any precise, ctearly defined and sufficientty channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the altegations made in the First lnformation Reporl or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused,. (2) where the allegations in the First lnformation Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not dlsc/ose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontrovefted ailegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence coltected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.' (4) where the allegations in the FtR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_ cognizable offence, no investigation. is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherenily improbabte on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a lust conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express tegal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a ciminal proceecling is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the-grievance of the aggrieved party; 7 (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and Personal grudge."

12. ln the present case on hand, as observed supra, there is no direct or independent witness to the occurrence of the alleged offences. All the allegations appear to be vague and civil in nature and without proper evidence. There is no proper and cogent evidence collected in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos'1 to 3' N4oreover, there is a civil dispute being contested by the de- facto complainant and the said material fact is not disclosed by the de-facto complainant in his complaint. Therefore, the present case falls within the ambit and parameters of point No.7 formulated in Ch.Bhaian LaI's case cited supra' Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. l3 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos''l to 3 in C.C.No.107B of 2021 on the file of the learned XXll Additional I I .. I I 8 Metroporitan Magistrate, cyberabat at t\4edchar, are hereby quashed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ^,3,"J;iS#del+X'iil / //TRUE COPY// JIU- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J, rh e XX I I Ad d i ti on ar M etrot "l'l?tx??:::11 ?l!'?',i 3?j, .,LY3 ji ji. I . +[:tJ3:1:il"J;:ff$?:":"ffi;"'*igh ;""' r"' the State oiieransana at Hvderabad (OUT) lji,: #i; i; F irataP' Advocate IoPUCI il;; il i..i o.xi'un Kumar Reidv' Advocate [oPUCl = 4 5 6 Two CD CoPies ABK \y t .: .:; HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 ORDER GRLP.No.1085 of 2022 (r- {- 1 0 SEP 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITTON g \