The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. BalaTripura Sundari Paida, W/o. Gopinadh Paida, age 65 years occ House Wife, R/o. Challa Pride, Czeck Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Complainants 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 quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No.277S of 20.18 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, At Kukatpally; Cyberabad. LA. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C No 2775 ot 2018 on the file of XV Additional Metropotitan Magistrate, At Kukatpally; Cyberabad. l.A. NO:3 oF 2025 Between: Smt. Bala Tripura Sundari Paid4 Wo.-Gopinadh pai( a , age 65 years occ House wife, R/o. chala prid", cz;ib;6;;-s;":; "r,{;;+, Hyderabad. ...Vacate Pet I oner/Respondent No.2 AND

1. Solakpa y Srinivas. S/g, ]?1"_ Balaiah, Aged about .tO years, Occ. Driver Ryo l -2- 1. Hydernasar, K.p. i.B dffii;' Fi))t;#;'

2. The state of rerangana, rep. by its pubric prosecuto" lespondenuPetitioner Petition under Section 529 of BNSS praying that in firr circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, t r I High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated ZO.O2.2O2S;l d pass in lA.No.2 of 2025 in CRLP No.2460 of 2025. This petitron coming on for hearing, upon perusirt the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing ih" ments of Sri MOHD GULAM RASOOL, Advocate for the petitioner anO tt I Sri Jithender Rao Veeramatla, Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the f espondent No.1 , and of Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Res;g ondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER "r,1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA -- CR!MINAL PETITION No.2460 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2775 ot 20'18 on the file of learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally' Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P C.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Gulam Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkaieswarlu, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submifted that the pelitioner is facing allegations of trespass and illegal construction in the property pertaining to respondent No.2-de facfo complainant- He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subiect property and that the electricity bills are in his name and thus, he cannot be alleged to have trespassed into his own property. He further pointed out that there are property disputes between both the parties and the present case is filed bearing grudge against the petitioner herein. He further 2 ETD,J Crl.P.No.2460 of2025 submitted that in spite of taking recourse to civil ( ourts, the present complaint is lodged with an ulterior motive.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further su rmitted that when the de facto complainant has applied for electricilr connection, it was rejected, as she does not have title to the subje(t property and that when she is not the owner of the subject property, she cannot allege trespass against the petitioner herein. He further ;ubmitted that the petitioner has documents in his favour to prove hi ; title. He further submitted that the petitioner is the real owner of tl e subject property and therefore, the said allegations do not hold any strength and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the p,r :sent C.C. against the petitioner herein. He further submifted that r similar Criminal Petition has been disposed of by a cc-ordinate bt nch of this Court, wherein it was observed that the petitioner may fi|,: discharge petition before the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 s;r bmitted that the husband of respondent No.2 has purchased the sur ect property in the year 1985 and ever since then, she has been in tossession of the same, but the petitioner herein has been irt:rfering with her possession and as such, she has obtained act inteim injunction 3 ETDJ Crl.P.No.2460 of2025 restraining the petitioner from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property and till date no vacate petition has been filed by the petitioner herein. He further submitted that the authorities concerned have erroneously rejected the electricity connection to the subject property being influenced by the petitioner herein. The petitioner is a trespasser, since the ad inteim injunction is not in his favour and that it shows that respondent No.2 is the owner of the subject property. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dism issed. 6, Perused the record

7. lt is borne by record that both the parties are claiming tifle over the same property. The GHMC has advised lhe de facto complainant as well as the petitioner through its letter, dated 19.04.2018, to seek appropriate remedies in the Couft of law and that the GHMC cannot resolve the title disputes. The same is filed along with the petition The petitioner herein is relying on the electricity bills and pahanies. Respondent No.2 has filed gift settlement deed showing that her sister has gifted the subject property to her in the year 2013. The charge sheet points out that apart from LW.1, LWs.2 and 3 are also listed as witnesses and their statements do point out that one Gopinath Paida, 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.2460 of2025 who is the husband of de facto complainant, is ir possession of the subject property and that the petitioner is t terfering with his possession. The veracity of the witnesses ar( the documentary evidence needs to be tested during the course <r trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendar )e of the petitioner before the trial Court

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispose< of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial O rurt provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial Court rf,n ev€y date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whe rever his presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending s,l all stand closed //TRUE COPY// S( L L. LAKSHMT BABU I IEPUTY REGISTRAR /' <- l-' SECTION OFFICER Kukatpally, Miyapur, cyberabad. '1. The Ir Additionar Judiciar civir Judge-cum-XrX Metropari an Magistrate 2. The S-tation House Officer, KpHB Cotony, police Statior Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High-iourt for tne St te of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Mohd Gutam Rasool, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Nootv Vasishta Venkateswarlu, havocaie OeUCI 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] I ! I i To NVB/PR ?11c.- HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 ORDER CRLP.No.2460 of 2025 o U Y * l.f:,,.- ,,r6Oj. 1S tl 2026 z P * p4l DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ?i"6 s\)l>L .l