The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under section 4g2 ot cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal-peiition, the High court may oe pleased to quash the proceedings in crime No.'1g6 of 202.1 pending on tire file of PS Penpahad, Suryapet District and pass l.A. NO: 'l OF 2024 Between: 1 The State of relangana, rep. by its pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad AND ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENT

1.Mr Dharavath Shankar Naik, S/o .Baloji, Age 36 years, Occ Govt Teacher, R/o H.No 4-35. Gajulamarkapuram, chinnigarikuntd tranoa, penpanaJ-rrrran'ali, Suryapet District

2.Mr Dharavath Gojya, S/o late Devula, Age 56 years, Occ Agric.rlture, R/o H.No.4- 32, Gajulamalkapuram, Chinnagarakunta Thanda, Penpahad li,landal, Suryapet District 3. [\/r Dharavath Laxma, S/o late Patchya, Age 32 years, r)cc Agriculture, R/o Gajulamalkapuram, Chinnagarakunta Thanda, Penpaharl Mandal, Suryapet District 4. Mr Dharvath Balram, S/o late Samya, Age 5'l years, 3ccAgriculture, R/o palulamalkapuram, Chinnagarakunta Thanda, Penpaharl Mandal, Suryapet District 5 Mr Dharavath Tharasingh, S/o. Devuja, Age 48 years, (rcc Electricity Dept. Asst. Line Man, At Chillepally Village of Neredcherla, Ri:. C hinnagaiakurita Thalda Penpahad lVlandal, Suryapet District 6 Mr Dharavath Harisingh, S/o Narsimha, Age 40 years, t)cc Agriculture, R/o H-.No-4-1_2/1, Gajulamalkapuram, Chinnagarakunta lhanda, penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District RESPONDENT /ACCUSED

7. Dharavath Lakya, S/o. Thavura, Age 70 years, Occ Agricu ture, R/o. Chinnagarakunta Thanda, Penpahad Mandai, Suryapet Dr,;trict. (R7 is not necessary party) ...RESPONDETIT/COMPLAINANT Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the H gh Court may be pleased to vacate the stay granted in Crl.P.No.',l304 of 2022 on the file of Court dated 101212022 and pass l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in :he circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the -1igh Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings or investigations ir crime No.1 g6 of 2021 pending on the file of PS Penpahad, suryapet District inciuding arrest of the petitioners / Accused No.'l ,3,4,5,7 and No.B and pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing thr, Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments,)f sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Smt. S.Madhavi, le;.rrned Asst. public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and none appea 's for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.13 O4 ot 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. l, 3, 4, 5,7 and 8 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.1B6 of 2021 on the file of Penpahad Police Station, Suryapet District

2. The brief facts of the case as per defacto complainant are that the accused herein on 29.12.2021 night at 11 PIV criminal trespassed into his agricultural land and consumed alcohol and on

30.12.2021 at monring when himself and his wife went to their land found 120 stone pillars around land were damaged and iron fencing was found missing. Hence he lodged a complaint before the Penpahad Police Station, which was registered in crime No.'186 of 2021 for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427,37g read with 34 of lndian Penal Code.

3. Heard Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondentState. There is no representation on behalf of respondeht No.2. Perused the record. 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners si bmits that 2nd respondent suppressed the material facts in the conrpraint and after having suffered with the order passed by te ll Additional District Judge, Nargonda at suryapet in c.fvrA.Nc .3 ot 2021 by order dated 12.11.2021 filed the present con plaint out of vengeance. The 2'd respondent arso did not discr rse about the civil dispute between him and the petitioners in ().s.No.200 of 2020 pending on the file of principal Junior Civil Jucge, Suryapet, The 2nd respondent farsery craiming as the owner or the said rand on the basis of e-passbook which was illegally an I fraudulenfly obtained without any source of tiile and the observatron of the same was made by the learned.ludge in C.M.A.No.3 of 2021. The allegations in the compraint are civir in nature an c hence the alleged offences do not attract against the petitro,ters and no offence is made out against the petitioners.

5. Whlle seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, he relied upon a simrlar case, wherein the Hon,ble Apex Court in Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar pradesh and Anotherr, held as-

36. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the FIR in question, if proceeded further, witt result in irbsolute t 2ozq tNsc a2 %ry abuse of process of Coutt. lt is a clear case of malicious prosecution. llence, the sarne /s required to be quashed

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the petition

7. A careful perusal of the trial Court order in Ct\4A No.3 of 2021 reveals that the plaintiff, who is the defacto complainant herein has filed pahanies from 2O2O only, whereas the respondents, who are accused herein have filed pahanies from 1994-95, 2008-09, 2011-12,2013-14. But the specific plea of the 2nd respondent herein is that he is in possession of the petition schedule land over 40 years, as per Ex.Al e-pass book. The noteworthy point is that the plaintiff offered no explanation as to how the names of the petitioners herein appear in the revenue records of 1994-95 i.e. 16 years priorto his pahanies in respectof the same survey number, when he is in possession of the petition schedule land over 40 years. lt apparently shows that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and defacto complainant herein with regard to the same piece of land, which is a matter to be adjudlcated by a competent civil Court. But the defacto complainant by adding criminal colour to a civil dispute filed the present petition. Further, no material is placed by the prosecution 4 that the petitioners have interfered into the land of the defacto complainant. Hence, the offences under section s 447, 422, 37g read with 34 of lpC are not made out. Further a sur in O.S.No.1 10 of 2020 is pending before the trial Court owing to ti-e civti disputes between the parties. lt appears that the matter ir; primarily civil dispute and has no criminal element and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is r othing but an abuse of the process of raw, which is given a crimilar corour to a civil dispute to setfle the scores between the partir,s. Further the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispu e, as per the finding given by the trial Court in CIVIA, as such, trey being the owners of the land in dispute they cannot criminalll trespass into their own land and hence, the allegations againsl the petitioners are not maintainable B. ln view of the facts and circurnstance; of the case including the setfled principle of law laid down by thr: Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, this tourt is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 3, 4, b,7 and i amounts to abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed

9. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allo,rued and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 4, 5, 7 and 5 8 in Crime No.186 of 2021 on the file of penpahad police Station, are hereby quashed. [\4iscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPY// . SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGIS TRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate At Suryapet. 2. The S_tation House Officer, penpahad police Station, S ? 9r" CC to Sri N. Bhujanga nao, nOvocatJl,;pu;; O Ty9 CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the Siate at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD copies. uryapet Distnct of Telangana BJLB/gh / I .i 1:lE -=:\ r4t s 18it]r 2E o .SPATI:\-l( 6(' z a A HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1304 ot 2022 g b CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED