The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Bala Tripura Sundari Paida, w/o Gopinadh Paida , age 65 yrs occ House Wife,RJo Challa Pride, Czeck Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad ... Complainants /Respondent 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 526 of 2020 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan lvlagistrate, At Kukatpally Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.526 of 2020 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Ivlagistrate, At Kukatpally; Cyberabad. I l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Bala Tripura Sundari Paida, Wo Gopinadh Paida tge 65 years occ House Wife,A/o Challa Pride, Czeck Colony, Sanath Nz 1 ar, Hyderabad ... Vacate Petitior lrlRespondent No.2 AND

1. Solakpally Srinivas, S/o. Late Balaiah Aged about 'l I years, Occ. Driver No.1-2-1 Hydernagar, K.P.H.B Colony, Hyderabad. ...Fr s Pond enUPetitio ne r

2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor. ...Respondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the ircumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, ther High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 20 02 2025 I tssed in l.A.No 2 of 2025 in CRLP.No.2448 of 2025. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arg i nents of Sri I\4OHD GULAM RASOOL. Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the I? )spondent No l, and of Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Res l rndenl No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA - CRIMINAL PETITION No .2448 0F 2025 ., ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No .526 of 2O2O on the file of learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, cyberabad, registered for the offences under sections 447 and 427 of l 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 Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing allegations of trespass and demorition of the property pertaining to respondent No.2-de facto comprainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject 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 submitted './ ') Et D..l Crl P No.2l48 ol 2015 that in spite of taking recourse to civil Courts, the pn:;ent complaint is .1 lodged with an ulterior motive

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further sull nitted that when lhe de facto complainant has applied for electricity ,: rnnection, it was rejected, as she does not have title to the subject 1 roperty and that when she is not the owner of the subject property, s re cannot allege trespass against the petitioner herein. He further r; rbmitted that the petitioner has documents in his favour to prove hit; title. He further submitted that the petitioner is the real owner of th: subject property and therefore, the said allegations do not hold a ry strength and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the pn: ;ent C.C. against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that r similar Criminal Petition has been disposed of by a co-ordinate ber ch of this Court, wherein it was observed that the petitioner may file r ischarge petition befcre the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 sr- I mitted that the husband of respondent No.2 has purchased the sub.t ct property in the year 1985 and ever since then, she has been in pcssession of the same, but the petitioner herein has been int: fering with her possession and as such, she has obtained ad lterim injunction J ETD,] Crl.P.No 2.148 of2025 restraining the petitioner from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property and till date no vacate petition has been fited 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 lhe ad interim 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 dismissed.

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 19.04.20'18, to seek appropriate remedies in the Court of law and that the GHTVC 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 to 4 are also listed as witnesses and their statements do point out that one Gopinath Paida, l ETD.] Crl P \. lr l8 ol202i who is the husband of de facto complainant, is in tossession of the subject property and that the petitioner is irrl >rfering with his possession. The veracity of the witnesses anc the documentary evidence needs to be tested during the course ol :rial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendanc : of the petitioner before the trial Court B. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposec :f dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Crrrt provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial Court )n every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court wher ever his presence is required during the course of trial Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shi ll stand closed. L. LAKSHMI BABU ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// , SECTION OFFICER To

1. The X Additional Judicial Civil Judge-Cum-X Addtinal Me at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. ropolitan Magistrate

2. The Station House Officer, KPHB Colony Police Statton, 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S t Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI IvIOHD GULAM RASOOL Advocate [O 5. One CC to SRI NOOTY VASISHTA VENKATESWARLTJ 6. Two CD Copies ) )yberabad. le of Telangana at JC] Advocate [OPUCI NVB/PR YY HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 ORDER CRLP.No'2448 of 2025 [iC, I DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITICII.I q *dd x,tr i _---