The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state OfTelangana.at Hyderabad (through PS KPHB, Cyberabad. Smt. Bala Tripura Sundari Paida, Mo Gopinadh Paida , age. 65 yrs occ. House Wife,R/o Challa Pride, Czeck Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. ...ComplainanUResPondents Petitlon under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C C.No.718 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, At Kukatpally Cybera bad l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be please to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the in C.C no 718 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 3 OF 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 please to vacate the interim order dated 20.02.2025 passed in lA No.2 of 2025 in CRLP 2454 o'f 2025. c I i |: I i , Between : Bala Tripura Sundari Paida, w/o Gopinadh Paida , age. 65 , rs occ. House Wife, R/o Challa Pride, Czeck Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hydet tbad. ...Vacate Petitio rer/Respondent No.2 AND

1. Solakpally Srinivas, Hydernagar, K.P.H sio. BC Late Balaiah Aged about 40 yn; Occ. Driver R/o.1-2-1 olony, Hyderabad. ...11 rspondenUPetitioner 2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, F i th Court for the state Of Telangana.at Hyderabad (through PS KPHB, Cyberaba<. ...Respondent No.1 LA. NO: 4OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that l the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay orders granted in lA I o. 2 ol 2025 in Crl P No 2454 of 2025 daled 2O10212025 until further orders. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinJl the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumen s of Sri Mohd Gulam Rasool, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao v:eramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and rf Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER .,i THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMTNAL PETITION NO.2454 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petit'toner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.718 of 2024 on lhe file of learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 oI t.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 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing allegations of trespass and demolition of the property pertaining to respondent No.2-de faclo complainant. 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 pa(ies and the present case is filed bearing grudge against the petitioner herein. He further submitted 2 ETDJ Crl.P.No 2454 of2025 that in spite of taking recourse to civil Courts, the pr:;ent complaint is lodged with an ulterior motive.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further sufr nitted that when the de facto complainant has applied for electricity r:, rnnection, it was rejected, as she does not have tiile to the subject p 'operty and that when she is not the owner of the subject property, r; re cannot allege trespass against the petitioner herein. He further sr bmitted that the petitioner has documents in his favour to prove his itle. He further submitted that the petitioner is the real owner of the ;ubject property and therefoi'e, the said allegations do not hold a r y strength and therefore, prayed to quash the prcceedings in the pres -,nt C.C. against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that a similar Criminal Petition has been disposed of by a co-ordinate ber( h of this Court, wherein it was observed that the petitioner may file rli ;charge petition before the trial Cou(.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 subr ritted that the husband of respondent No.2 has purchased the subjec : property in the year 1985 and ever since then, she has been in p:;session of the same, but the petitioner herein has been interf rring with her possession and as such, she has obtained ad in erim injunction I I 3 ETD,J Crl.P.No.2454 of2025 restraining the petitioner from interfering with her peacefur possession and enjoyment over the subl'ect property and tiil date no vacate petition has been fired 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 dismissed.

6. Perused the record. 7' rt is borne by record that both the pafties are craiming tifle over the same property. The GHMC has advised the de facto complainant as well as the petitioner through its letter, dated 1g.04.201g, to seek appropriate remedies in the Court of law and that the GHMC cannot resolve the tifle disputes. The same is fired arong with the petition. The petitioner herein is relying on the eleckicity bills and pahanies. Respondent No.2 has fired gift setflement 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 arso risted as witnesses and their statements do point out that one Gopinath paida, , I 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.2454 of2025 1 who is the husband of de facto complainant, is in subject property and that the petitioner is irl rossession of the :rfering with his possession. The veracity of the witnesses anc the documentary evidence needs to be tested during the course o' :rial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendanc : of the petitioner before the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dispose<l rf dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Cc rrt provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial Courl cn every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whe t ever his presence is required during the course of trial. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending srt rll stand closed. SD/- A II S GOWRI SHANKAR ,+s{ rsrANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// I ''.Fecrroru oFFtcER To,

1. The XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally )yberabad. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the (;l tte of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Mohd Gulam Rasool, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkatesw, Advocate [O '>UC] 5. Two CD Copies Svs/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 i I j ORDER GRLP.No.2454 of 2025 p*+;; Tl{:S oR Y t 03 * nll 2tl7,: 1",rjri .'ua'''*,/" '.1-...,"' i-_..--.t l DISPOSING OF THE CRLP tK --t Ff rfta