The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana, through rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. Avula Raji Reddy, S/o Narayan Reddy Aged about 50 Years, Occ, Business ...RESPONOENT Villa No.1 59, lndus Fortune Villas, 7th Phase, Kukatpally, Hyderabad Telengana. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT 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 quash the FIR No.152 of 2021 dated 02.03.2021 on the file of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Cyberabad Dist. l.A. NO: 2OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners in FIR NO.'152 ot 2021 dated 02.03.2021 on the file of Ramachand rapuram Police station, Cyberabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA ,Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri E. Ganesh,Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Smt. Shivan Reddy representing Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOIIRABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENT GOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2O93 OF zot I ORDER: , This Criminrll Petilion is filed under Sectior: .182 Cr.P.C. seekrng ru qua,sh the proceedings initiared againsr the petitioner/ accused in FIR.No.152 of 2021, on the file of Ramachandrapur:rrn Police Slation, Cyberabad, regir.[ered for thc offences punishablt: under Sections 447, 427,341, 147 , 14U and 506 R/r'v. 149 of IPC.

2. Hezrrd the lcarnecl counsel for the petiti rner/accused, Smt.Shivzrn Reddy, lcarned counsel representing Mr.R rsu Mahender Reddy, learned counscl appearing for 2"d respondent zrtrd the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Brief facts of lhe case are that a complaint has been filed by one Avula Raji Reddy, de facto complainant on 02.03.1102 1 at about 15:30 hrs before Ramzrchandrapuram Police Station. Based on the said complaint, a case vide FIR.No. 152 of 2021 has b ren registered against the petitioncr for the offences stated supra. In the complaint, it is stated that the respondents are lhe dei elopers of the land or,vned by Mrs Satwant Kaur and 8 others in Sy.Nos.273 & 274 of Kollur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Sanga Reddy.Di;trict and the said land is under rrninterrupted possession of land ow ters and their predecessors from.[954 55. The said land was acquire :1 by the land ,/,/ I I 2 t owners by way ol valid passbooks and title deeds. Basing on the said passbooks and title deeds, the concerned RDO got the property surweyed and converted the same into non-agriculture. Subsequently , dne de focto complainant and Cadol Developers, a partnership concern has taken the property for development for open plotting as well as for constructing villas. Accordingly, respondents entered into Registered Development Agreement-Cum-GPA. Later, thcy have applied for permission with HMDA and the concerned authority. After verification of documents, both HMDA and State Irvel Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) have rccommended for approval of layout for villas and plotting While so, the pe titioner herein claiming to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.885 of Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Rcddy District trcspassed into the land of tJne de /ocfo complaint in Sy.Nos.273 & 274 of Kollur Village on- 20.O2-2O21. On seeing that, thc de focto complainant dialed 1OO and the Police of R.C'Puram arrived at the site and summoned the petitioner. Subscquently, on Ol.O3.2O2l, the Manager of the site complainant got an intimation from the site that thc petitioner along with his henchmen hugc in number, again trespassed into the land and demolished the boundary wall and threatened the labour with deadly weapons' In thc complaint, it is further stated that in order to put Mr' Ravinder Rcddy and Mr.Bhaskar Reddy under tremendous pressure, the t I 3 petitioner herein filed a false case against them and litJ:ing advantage of their absencc, tlre petitioner is trying to grab the propertv illegally. Hence, the present complaint is filed.

4. Learned courscl lor the petitioner submits that ltasing on the complaint filed It.,. the de /acro complainL, the cr.rnc has beer.r registered against the pctitioner herein for the abovt: said offences. Subsequently, Section 3O7 of IpC has been added .o thc existing Sections. He frrrr her submits that a case has bt:c I filed by the petitioner herein :Lg:rinst o.e Ravinder Reddy and ar.iher zrnd the same lras beert registerecl as FIR.No. 175 ol 20 ) j . Seeking quashment o[ th. saicl FIR, said Ravinder Redcl,r, rrnd anoLher approached this c.urt by firing crl.p.No. r554 of 2o2t :;rtd this court vide order clated O I .O4.2021 qirashed the proceedirr gs against the petitior-rers the'ci'r stating that civil proccedings vidt: o.S.No.656 of 2019 arc pcnding.

5. Le arned cou nsel lbr the petitioner further subr tiLs that there was a dispute u.it r regzrrd to overlapping of lands ir . the said two villages i.e., Kolltrr and .Janwada. ln the said circt mstances, the District Collectors of borh the Districts i.c., Sanga Rr:c dy and Ranga Reddy by conducting joint survey resolved the si.Lcl issue and accordingly issuccl proccedings dated OS.O2.2OOZ. It is pertinent to note that the respondenl herein is not a party to the :omplaint filed by the petitioner herein *,hich is registered as FIR.N.. 125 of 2o2r. r|- 4 Whilc the said complaint is under investigation, another complaint is fited by the respondcnt hereinlde facto complaint precisely after a lapse of lO days against thc petitioner herein. At this stage, the pctitioner hercin has filed the present petition seeking to quash the procecdings in FIR.No. 152 of 2O2l and this Court has grantcd s l_ay of all further proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the unofhcial respondent submits that this Court has granted stay stalling the proceedings before tl-re trial Court. Unless the trial is being continued, the truth cannot be elicitcd. Hence , he seeks to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this Court granted stay of proceedings before the trial Court. He further submits that unless and until full fledged trial is conducted by examining the witnesses, the truth or cther-wise of the allegations leveled against the petitioner cannot be elicited. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of thc prcsent petition.

8. I{aving regard to the rival contentions and upon perusal of the contents madc in the complaint, this Court of thc opinion that this Court has rightly quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.1554 of 2O2lvide order dated Ot.O4.2O2l. While so, the respondcnt hcrcin hled a complaint on O2.O3.2O21 against the petitior-rer herein precisely after lapse of 10 days of filing the 5 complaint by the pretitioner herein, which goes to shor,. rhat the case filed by the respondent herein is nothing but a cour te,r blast case. The identity or the relation .f thc rcspondent herein u irh the present case has not becn discktscd. Sir-rce the parties have i: lreacly agitated their rights i, O.S.No.656 of2019, the ingredients of c llences allegcd against the petitioner hcreil does not sustain. 9 . In vieu, ol' t hre above said circumstances and rc iving upon the guidelines framcrl bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court irr the .judgment reported in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Othr rsr, this Court deems il approprr..te to quash tltc proceedings agains the petitione r herein. 1O. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allo rt.d ancl the proceedings agai.st thc petrtioncr in F.lR. lS2 of 2O,21. on the file of Ramachandrapura m Police Station, Cyberabad, are h, .r-,:b]. qr-rashcd. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also s lirnd closed. t t%, frtR 6o9 SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI r.+SSISTANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// ; sEcTtoN oFFtcER I Cyberabad. Court, Sanga Reddy.

1. The special Judicial Magistrate of First class prohibiti.n and Excise offences 2. The Station H.use Officer, Ramachandra puram (CyE ), police Station , 3. One CC to SRt V S R M.V PRASAD SANAKA, Advoc ate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI RESU MAHENDER, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for ttre Statr i of Telangana at 6. Two CD Copies HyderabadIOUT]. AR/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0110712025 ORDER CRLP.No.2093 ol 2021 I o srp zozi ({ ALLOWING THE CRI-..P. o) o-