The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 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.3086 ol 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2434 OF 2025 Between: 1 . Arvind Narania, S/o. Late Kishorilal Narania, Aged abo r 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 4-3-716 to 7'19, Ramkote, Sultan Bazaar, H1r 3rabad - 500095. 2. Geeta Narania, Wo. Aravind Narania, Aged about 66 year; Occ. Housewife, R/o. 4-3-716 to 719, Ramkote, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad - [ ]0095.

3. Ashwin Narania, S/o. Arvind Narania, Aged about 39 y: rrs, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. 4-3-716 to 719, Ramkote, Sultan Baze rr, Hyderabad - 500095

4. Pooia Narania, Wo. Ashwin Narania, Aged about 37 years Occ. Housewife, R/o. 4-3-716 to 719, Ramkote, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad - [ ]0095 ...PETITIONERSiA(: :USED No.1 to 4 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., P.S. Sultan E; zaar, Hyderabad District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the {; rte of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT No. 1'COMPLAINANT

2. Arun Kumar Narania, S/o. Late Kishorilal Narania, Aged abr rt 65 Years. Occ Business, R/o. 4-3-716 to 719, Ramkote, Sultan Bazaar, Hyc:rabad -500095. ...RESPONDENT No.2/DE-FACT,I COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in tl- r circumslances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the l'l th Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accur; ,ds No. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 1485612024 on the file of the Hon'ble ll Additional t) rief tvletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in tT) circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the I'l lh Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 14856 of 20.2 filed before the Hon'ble ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of I Sanjay, representing Sri R A Achuthanand, Advocate for the Pe E.Ganesh, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telar 1 the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for Respondent no.2 irr vlemorandum of ri Narayana Das itioners and [Vlr ana on behalf of roth petitions. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER r I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VE}{UGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2354 arad 2434 of 2A25 Dated: LO.L2.2O2S cRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2354 of 2o25 Between: Arvind Narania and alother .. Petitioners The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., P.S. Sultan Bazar and arother And CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2434 o! 2O25 ... Respondents Between: Arvind Narania and others Petitioners The State of Telangana, Through S.H,O., P.S. Sultan Bazar and another And ... Respondents COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in both these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

1. 2' criminal Petition No.2354 of 2025 is fiiecr r eeking to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused t os. 1 and 2 in c'c No'3086 of 2021 on the file of the rearned I A.dditionar chief 'l'{etropolitan Magistrate, Llyclerabad (for short, " he triar ,court,,) for the olfences punishable under Secticrrs l2O(ir , 425, 503, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 156(3) of Cr.p.C. a.) Crimina1 Petition No.2434 of 2O2S is Iiled r; :efting to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused r los. 1 to 4 in C.C.No. 14856 of 2024 on the file of the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 12O(b),384, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C

4. Heard Mr. Narayana Das Sanjay, lea -ned counsel representing Mr. R.A.Achuthanand, learned co rnsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant F-l tlic prosecutor representing learned public prosecutor-appearing br respondent No. 1-State. Perused the record. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Cr t.p.No.2354 of 2025 are discussed as hereunder:_

5. The brief facts of the case are that respond ert No.2 / d-e facto compiainant filed a complaint before the tria-l Corlt srating that he has join?fncestral property bearing H.No.4 z -946 to 948, l J Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad comprising of ground floor, first floor and two tin sheds on terrace portion and the said property is shared between the accused and the de facto complainant. The compiainant submits that he has let out his Mulgi/Portion on ground floor and tirere is only one common staircase. It is stated that the complainant owns one portion in the first floor and he intended to let it. The accused persons, r,r,ho managed the affairs of the property, conspired with each other ald started creating nuisance by keeping their articles on the common stair case of the building. It is alleged that the accused persons deliberately kept 2O to 3O sharp edged iron rods, u'hich is causing serious injuries to others. Basing on the said facts the present crime is registered as C.C.No.30B6 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, F.I.R. has been registered after a lapse of five long years and that there were civil disputes persisting betrveen the parties. He contends that petitioner No.1 filed Suit for Declaration, Partition and recovery of sum ol Rs. 1022924 l- with interest against respondent No.2 vide O.S.No.7B9 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additiona-l Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Vide order dated 19.07.2019 in I.A.No.1O3B of 2019 + in O.S.No.7B9 of 2076 an ad-interim Injunct r n was granted restraining the respondent from making tny additions, alterations or causing damage or changing tlr nature of the praperty till the disposal of the suit. 7 . He further draws the attention cf thi r Court to the judgment dated 18.11.2023 in C.C.No.17885 of lO19 before the trial Court, u'herein one Mr.Vishal Sharma had I ted a complaint against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Sec, rn 506 of I.P.C Para No.19 of the said judgment is extracted as t r der:- "l9.On perusal of the ingredients of Section 506 of ll' attracting to thc case of the proscction. Apart from thtrt I indcpcndenr !! rtnesscs in this casc cxcept his own fami 1 Though, thc alleged incidcot occurred in a busy arca at 11:01 of the indcpcndent !!,itncsses $.crc examined including ti r r,r'hom the mulgi is sho$n by PW-3 is not examined. Fu.th l delay of more than one month in lodging Ex.Pl thouBh the Pi offence is '/, km, for rvhich no reasons are given by PU'3 1 such, it appears that in order to courter bl,ast the c:,r accused against PW4 case, this case is filed agaittst the a( ( ). are not tre are no menrbers. q.M. none PCTSOn tO there is a Lo scenc of r Pl\'2, as : filed by rsed"- The aforesaid judgment sho\.\.'s that PW4 in tht above case is respondent No.2lde facto complainant in the pr:;ent complaint. Therefore, reiying on the decision passed by the 11 )n'ble Supreme Court in R.Nagender Yadav Vs. State of l elangana and anotherl, he states that when civil disputes arc l iven the colour of criminal offence, this Court must quash the impugned proceedings. Stating thus, he seeks to allorr the Criminal Petition. ' lzoz:1 z scc tss l B. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that upon , conducting thorough investigation, respondent-Police have laid charge sheet agajnst the petitioners for the alleged offences. Therefore, unless trial is conducted the truth does not come tc light and seeks to disrniss the Criminal Petition.

9. On perusal of the material on record would sho',r. that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and tllre de facto complainant. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and on the guidelines of the Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others2, this Court finds that the points raised by the petitioners cannot be countenanced at this stage. Hence, \ \ this Court is not inclined to entertain these Crimina-l Petitions at , I this stage and the Criminai Petitions are iiable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, these Criminal Petition Nos.2354 and 2434 of 2025 are dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.3086 of 2024 and the appearance of petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.14856 of 2024 is dispensed with on each and every adjournment subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioners stating that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed 'izo: r; r s.c.R. to+n 6 by them in any manner. The petitioners sha-Il .l pear belore the tria-l Court as and when specifically required. n the event of failure of the petitioners- to appear when the C I .rrt directs, this order- dispensing vvith their appeararce I tands vacated automatica-Ily. Needless to mention, the pe titir, r rrs a-re granted Iiberty to work out the remedies as available unrl:r lau, including filing of discharge application before the tria-l C r urt. it is made ciear, this order shall not preclude the trial Co I -t from passing appropriate orders as per law Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shr J stzrnd closed. SD/, A Srl :EN|VASA REDDY ASSIIi 'ANT REGISTRAR \ t To //TRUE COPY// S ECTION OFFICER /

1. The llAdditional Chief Metropolrtan Magistrate at Nampaily Hyderabad 2 The s^tation House officer, sirrtan Bar;;ii;;iL"'siJiion, rJ derabad Diskict. 3. Two CCs to the pubtic prosecutor, ntgn ior liE itri" ii"iingr;;,-;i- j th" 99 t_o 5. Two CD Copies 'Sri i n ncnuthanand, Advocate [OPUC] HVderabad IOUTT -ouri prlPS o --:::-. t ts -'t ,- ;.'\ irEC 2 M i .,,I,i !' .f,' HIGH COURT DATED: 1011212025 GOMMON ORDER z' ,1. i- i ::i I _i CRLP.Nos.2354 AND 2434 OF 2025 i..2. \ I DISMISSING THESE CRL.PETITIONS o