The High Court · 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 stay all further proceedings in crime No.5 of 2023 of Tukaramgate police station, Hyderabad including arrest of the petitioner, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: Dr. It/arilyn Diana, D/o. Iate H.A. Dawson, Aged 64 , e trs, R/o 661, West tvlaredpally, Secunderabad. H.No 10-1- ...P :litioner/Respondent AND

1. J.Devender Rao, S/o. late J.lt/luralidhar Rao, aged 55 y:ars, Business, R/o. Plot No.'180, Shantiniketan Colony, [\/ahendra H s East Maredpally, Secunderabacl. ...R r:; pon denUPetitioner The State of Telangana,, Rep by, Public Proser u or, High Court at Hyderabad, Through Station House Officer Tukaramgat,; rolice slation. z . . . Res 1:rc n denURes pondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition be pleased to Vacate the interim order in lA No.1 of 2O2 \ 2023 dated 21-02-2023 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. n the circumstances 'he High Court may n Crl.P.No.1757 of This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ifre [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argu",re nts of Sri K.Rama Krishna, Advocate, representing Sri [Vl.Srinivas, Advocate 'o the petitioner and the Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public ProsecLr rJ" s11 behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of Sri Kodali Bhaskar, Advocate for I re Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1757 of 2023 Order: This criminal petition has been frled by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.5 of 2023 on the file of Tukaramgate Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused for the olfences punishable under Sectiots 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Heard Sri K.Rama Krishna learned counsel representing Sri M. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Kodali Bhaskar, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 through video conference.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absoiute owner and possessor of House bearing No.10-3-32/9 /3/ A. The petitioner 1S claiming the right over the property through registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2234 and 2510 of 1985 dated 05.08.1997 ) I When respondent No.2 and others trying to in1 r::'fere with the aforesaid property, the petitioner filed a suit ,l le O.S.No.91 of 2022 on the file of the I Junior Civil Jti 111e, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for grant of perpetual nrunction and the said suit was decreed on 27 .11.2OO2 ancf the same has become final. He further submitted that the l,e.itioner being the Managing Partner of M/s. Grand Estates .'l.t d a suit uide O.S.No.1263 of 2OO7 on the hle of the ;)rincipal Rent Controller-cum-XVII Junior Civil Judge, r:iccunderabad, against one Sir C.Badrinath Yadav, for grar t of perpetual injunction and the said suit was also decrer d in favour of M/s. Grand Estates on 24.03.2008 and tlLe above said decrees have become final. When responden. \o.2 tried.to trespass the subject property, the petitio 'r, :r lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Tukzr:z mgate Police Station on 21.IO.2O22, when the said complii r:t is pending, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 22.1O.'.,'t)22 before the very same Police Station. The Inspector c) Police, after conducting the investigation, closed both the c rmplaints on the ground that the nature of the complaints olged by both the parties are 'Civil in Nature'. Respondenl l{o.2 with an 3 intention to harass the petitioner fiIed a complaint with the same allegations on 09.01.2023, basing on the same, the present Crime No.5 of 2023 was registered. He further submitted that respondent No.2 also filed a suit uide O.S.No.l29 of 2O19 against the petitioner for grant of perpetual injunction and the said suit was dismissed on

22.02.2024. Respondent No.1 lodged the present complaint with an intention to harass the petitioner though the nature of allegations made in the complaint is purely 'Civil in Nature' and the decrees passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.91 of 2022 dated 27.77.2OO2 is operating. Hence, the crlme registered against the petitioner is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner is not having any right over the subject property. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, issued notice exercising the powers conferred under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, wherein it is specilically mentioned that the petitioner obtained the 4 { \ building permission of house bearing No. ( -3-32/9 /31 A though the said house number is not in exi.t,:nce and not available in municipal records. He further sutr-n itted that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 on 22.1rt.2922 and the allegations made in the present complaint, da.:<l 09.O1.2O23, both are different. There is specific allegati,,r against the petitioner that he trespassed into the subject r r rperty, which belongs to respondent No.2 and damaged t.-,r two wheeler through JCB. Whether, the petitioner has :r,mmitted the offence or not, the same will be revealed durin =; the course of investigation only and there are no grounds I o quash crime No.5 of 2023 and the petition is liable to be dis :rissed.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sut, r-lts that there are no grounds to quash crime No.5 of 2023

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by .vay of reply submits that questioning the notice issued b'., the GHMC dated 21.05,2079, tlne petitioner approached .ris Court and filed writ petition and this Court suspended tti,: eotice issued by the GHMC and the said writ petition is pen< ir g 5 7 . Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is claiming the rights over the property pursuant to the registered sale deeds bearing documents No. 2234 of 1985 and 2570 of 1985 dated 05.08. 7997 and, also it is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached the learned Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against respondent No.2 and others, for grant of perpetuai injunction and the learned Junior Civil Judge, and the ex parte decree was passed on 27 .l I .2OO2 . The record further reveals ihat petitioner being the Managing partner of M/s.Grand Estates filed another suit uide O.S.No. 1263 of 2OO7 against one Sri Bhadrinath Yadav, for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property and the said suit was decreed on 24.O3.2O0g. In the said suit, respondent No.2 is not a party defendant. In the present complaint, there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioner that he entered in the property of respondent No.2 with JCB and damaged the vehicre bearing No.Apo9H341g. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the very same allegations, respondent No.1 lodged i I i t 6 a complaint on 22.70.2022, the Investigatior' )fflcer closed the complaint as 'Civil in Nature' on O.. 1.2022 and registering the present crlme basing on th, r complaint of respondent No.2 is clear abuse of proce: s of 1aw. As concerned, the allegations made in the ea Lier complaint daled 22.11.2022 and the allegations made ir the present complaint, both are different. Whether tlre petitioner damaged the two wheeler vehicle through J(l .l the same is disputed question of fact and the same cannot b,: adjudicated in the present Criminal Petition. Hence, thi ; Court is not inclined to quash the crime No.S of 2023 {owever, the offence leveled against the petitioner, the in Lg risonment is below 7 years. Hence, this Court is of the c. tsidered view, that the Investigation Officer is directed t, r follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions : .i Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C., presently Section 35(3) of BNSS ,r nC also follow a the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble , ,I,ex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart. Tht petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigation anr I he petitioner is entitled to place all the documents along w t.lr explanation ' lzor+1 a scc 273. 7 before the Investigation Ofhcer. On such explanation, the Investigation Officer is directed to consider the same and take appropriate action in this regard.

8. With the above said directions, this Criminal petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. SD/- N. SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, \

1. The XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate at Secunderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Tukaramgate Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri M.Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Kodali Bhaskar, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies NVBiPSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 I .:\ 1, -[r 295 \i ORDER CRLP.No.1757 of 2023 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \o IoW