The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of C:.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 relating to cc.No.432 of 2o21 arising out of crime No.178 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hayathnagar, and quash the proceedings in CC 432 oI 2021 . LA. NO: 'l OF 2022 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 including appearance of the petitioner in CC.No.432 of 202'l arising out of Crime No. l78 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hayathnagar, pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. S. Madhavi, Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CltlMlNAL PETITION No.1227 OF 2022 ORDER This C riminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quersh the proceedings against him in C.C.No.432 of 2021 pending rn the file of learned XXIV Additional fi/letropolitan Magistrate, [)yberabad at Hayathnagar, registered f cr the offences under Sections 447,427 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for : hort 'the Act').

02. Flr:ard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned coun:;el for petitioner anrj Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-ar;cused was trying to damage the Kaprai Cheruvu Main Bund located at Sahebnagar \rrllage, Hayathnagar Mandal by digging and ktveling with JCB bea.rrg No. TS 07 GD 3565 and Tractor No. At,22 V 9931 for makirg plots on 06.02.2021 and the respondent No.2 being departrnr:nt official intervened and protected the Kaprai Cheruvu Bund. On inspection of site on O}.O3.ZO21 the main 2 bund of Kaprai Cheruvu Bund damaged to a length of 30 meters by digging the bund and leveling the bund. Further, it was noticed that the accused criminally trespassed into the said place and damaged main bund for making house sites during the public holidays.

04. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The petitioner did not damage the main bund of Kaprai Cheruvu as alleged by the respondent No.2. The wife of the petitioner filed W.P.No.'1937 of 2021 against the officials of the lrrigation Department who are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the patta land of the petitioner, wherein this Court vide Order dated29.01 .2021 directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property and further directed the petitioner not to undertake any construction until further orders. The petitioner was implicated on the basis of the information furnished to the respondent No.2. The informer of the alleged incident to the respondent No.2 is not known. The present case is filed only with a view to deter him from enjoying his own patta land. The a allegations rnrrde in the complaint as well as charge s;heet, if taken on its far:e value, and accepted in entirety, no case is made out against t- e petitioner for the offences alleged against the petitioner l-lr: nce, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitio ner- zrccused.

05. Cn the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor ap ltearing for the State contended that it is rrot a fit case to quasl- the proceedings against petitioner at this juncture and the mattelr is to be decided after conducting trial by tht; Court below and pray ed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

06. Fl;;ving regard to the submissions made on either side and on pt,rusal of the record, it is apparent that the wife of the petitioner flled W.P No.1937 of 2021 and this Court vide Order dated 29.01 2()21 granted interim order directing the respondents therein not to nterfere with the possession of the pe.:itioner therein. The urife of the petitioner claiming the subject lernd by way of patta allr>tted by the Government. lt is relevant to note that there is no mentron of particurar detairs in the entire charge sheet as to which property the petitioner had trespassed and caused damage. The alleged incident happened to be occurred on public I 4 holiday. The person who informed about the incident to the respondent No.2, was not examined. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had caused the damage of more than fifty rupees but as seen from the averments of the charge sheet there is no panchanama showing such damage. Moreover, out of three eyewitnesses cited in the charge sheet, two of them are official witnesses. The version of the other witnesses appears to be hearsay. There is no direct witness to prove that the offence has taken place

07. 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 Article 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 otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently ' 1992 scc (suPP) 1 335 rr:, i, .t {!+qir@;ffiWta .' -i ( 5 channelise,,j and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) where the allegations made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken er t their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make orJl ia case against the accused; (2) where lhe allegations in the First lnformation Report and c,ther materials, if any, accompanying the F.l R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section '156;, 1) of the Code except under an order of a l\rlagis.rate within the purview of Section 155(2) ol tirr: 666" (3) where tlr,: uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or ':omplaint and the evidence collected in suppo( :f the same do not disclose the commission :f any offence and make out a case against the er:cused; (4) where llre allegations in the FIR do not constitute a r:ognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognt;:able offence, no investigation is permitted bv a police officer without an order of a lVlagistrate arj ,jontemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code, (5) where tl-,,1 allegat ons made in the FIR or complaint zre so absurd and inherenfly improbable o r the basis of which no prudent 6 person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding 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) where a criminal proceeding is manifesfly attended with mala fide andior 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."

08. ln the present case on hand, as observed supra, there is no mention of details of the property which was allegedly trespassed by the petitioner and there is no direct witness to the occurrence of the incident. All the allegations appears to be vague and general in nature and without proper evidence. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and there is no proper and cogent 7 evidence collect-'d in support of the said allegations. Therr-'fore, the present cas;: falls within the ambit of point Nos.1 and 3 of Ch.Bhajan Lai 's; case cited supra. Therefore, the continuat on of the criminal prr:<:eedings againsl the petitioner-accused amcunts to abuse of procr:ss of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

09. Acc:,:rdingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings agl ainst the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.4l)2 of 2021 pending r:rr the file of learned XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberrabad at Hayathnagar, are hereby quashed 4s 6 ssrqrrel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closr..d SD/. A.V.Si. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// \ \ \:_ \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXIV Additio" al Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayat'rnagar. 2. The Station Houst: Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Vanasthalipuram Division.

3. Two CCs to the Fublic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telengana at HyderabadIOUT]

4. One CC to Sri A F)rabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Plp/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:17ll3|,2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1227 ot 2022 o({ 1HE sTq 16- ( o ?6 t'tnn m ({\( >z a :.-PnJc 1 D -\i;::_=: cO * ALLOWING THIE CRL.P.