The High Court · 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 call for records relating to the above C.C.No.175 of 2024 on the file of the court of the learned lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal and quash the same in the interest of justice OF 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 in C.C.No. 1lS of 2024 on lhe file of the court of the learned lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J SESHAGIRI RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner, and Ms. G. Sumati, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for Respondent 1, and Sri. Rudresh Deshpande, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL No.29O3 oF 2()2s ORDER: This criminal petition is fired under section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSSJ by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in c.c.No.tTS of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Judiciar First class Magistrate at Warangal. 2- Heard Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.G. sumathi, rearned Amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of respondent No.l, and sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant public prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State- perused the material available on'record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l filed a complaint against the petitioner stating that the SRSP canal land falls between 228.goo KM and 229.ooo KM, situated in Survey No.384, the width of the sRSp canal measure s 6z meters from the center of the main Kakatiya canal, located near Thummalakunta, Autonagar, warangal, however, . the 2 EW,J CRLP.No.29Oi OF 2025 petitioner allegedly encroached upon the said land and excavated soil from the SRSP land with mala fide intention to occupy the same illegally. Previously, a case was registered against the petitioner, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC in Crime No.251 of 2022 at Matwada Police Station. After that, the complainant noticed that the petitioner had again encroached upon the SRSP Cana1 land. The complainant, along with his co-worker, the Deputy Executive Engineer, visited the site on the sarne day and .submitted another complaint against the petitioner, requesting that necessa-ry legal action be taken to protect the SRSP Canal land. Hence, for the s€une facts and circumstances, one more case i.e., Crime No. 4 of 2024 was registered before the Matwada Police and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed uide c.c. No.175 of 2024 before the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the absolute owner of a piece of property measuring 385 square yards in Sy.No.36, situated at Gouthaminag€rr, T\rmmala Kunta, Kothawada, Warangal. The propert5r corresponds to Municipal House No.11-28-285 (old 3 H.No. 1 l-28-224 /A-C), acquired through a registered sale deed EW,J CRLP.No.29Oi OF 2O2s bearing Document No. 5596 of 2003. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the said propert5r. Learned for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner .counsel is encroaching on SRSP Canal land is baseless and merely a result of pressure from local colony residents, where the petitioner himself resides. The first complaint was Iiled in the same context, and it is still pending before the trial Court. It is further submitted that, prior to frling the present criminal petition, the petitioner had filed Writ petition No.6Ol9 of 2021, before this Court, which was disposed of uid"e order dated

31.03.2013, which reads as under:

47. It is fwrAher obsented that as contended at Para No.8 of the counter affi.dauttfiled bg respond.ent .l\Io.5 that 'the Authotlfies concented, utlll take strlngent action agalnst all the person, uhoeoer try to encroach lnto clrnal area and. further the respond,ents shall malntaln the buffer zones of sald canal as per the guld.ellnes of G.O.Ms.No.76g dated. O7.O4.2O72 to safegaard. the uater bodies, the respond.ents shall dulg follow the same, in the eaent petltioner encroa.ches into Co,nal Ared?. ! ) 4 EW,J CRLP.No.2903 OF 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon

5. filing of the writ petition, at the behest of complatnantf respondent No.l, the respondent No.2 registered an F.l.R.No.O4 of 2024 and charge sheet has been filed.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint dated

05.0 t.2024, made by the respondent No.1, alleges that the petitioner encroached upon SRSP canal land and seeks action in accordance with law. He further submits that the FIR fails to disclose that an earlier FIR (Crime No. 2515 of 20221, based on the s€une facts, was already registered by one N.Sirisha/Assistant Executive Engineer. A charge sheet was filed in that case, and the trial in C.C.No.469 of 2023 is pending before the III Junior First Class Magistrate, Warangal. These facts were suppressed by the respondent No.1/complainant and the respondent No.2, who failed to investigate this aspect before filing the present charge sheet.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a senior citizen, is being harassed through criminal prosecution instigation by respondent No.2, allegedly acting on behalf of certain other residents of the colony. It is further submitted that already one complaint had been filed for the same facts and circumstances under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC before the VI Additional 5 EW) CRLP.No.29O3 OF 2O2S Judicial First class Magistrate, warangar, which is pending before the trial court. It is further submitted that subjecting the petitioner to multiple prosecutions on the same set of facts violates Article 20(21 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: Article 20 (2) protects indiuiduols from being prosecuted and punished multiple times for the same offence. 1l is also known as protectton against double jeopardg. It guarantees that a person cannot be penalbed twice for tLe same offence.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences under sections 447 and 430 Ipc a,d Section 3 of the pDpp Act are not made out, as the petitioner did not trespass into the SRSp Canal land or cause any damage by attempting to construct a house on it. Hence, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon,ble Court to quash the proceedings against him.

9. Ms. G. Sumathi, learned Amicus Curiae appointed in the absence of respondent No. 1, submits that the Sections involved in both the cases are entirely different and independent in nature. She contends that unless the trial is concluded, the truth cannot be elicited. Therefore, she prays the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6 1(). Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the EW,J CRLP.No.2903 OF 2025 learned Amiats curiae appearing for respond.ent No.l, and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2, this court, upon examination of the facts and material placed before it, is curious to note that although the complainants are different in both cases, the facts, circumstances and witnesses, specifically Lw-2/M. Krishna prasad and Lw-4/T. Rajamallu, are the same in both the cases uiz., F.I.R. No.251 of 2022 and F.I.R. No.04 of 2024.

11. Hence, it can be seen that the present case has been instituted solely to harass the petitioner. The crime was registered and investigated in a purely mechanical manner, without proper application of mind. L2- The Apex court in the case of ?. T.Antong as stqte of Keralq. & othersl quashed the FIR and subsequent proceed.ings, and alfirmed that the oiginal inuestigation und.er the first FIR slnuld continue throughfurther inuestigation. Hence, the conduct of the respondent/Police appears perverse, &s it subjects the petitioner to undergo the repeated criminal investigation and 1 proseclyrtion when the facts and circumstances of the both the \ .--. --c.-- '1zoor; 6 scc 18i -.; - ;-;;;:-fl 7 , EW,J CRLp.No.2903 OF 2025 crimes are one and the same. such action amounts to an abuse of the process of law- Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is incrined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

13. Accordingry, the criminar petition is alrowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in c.c.No.175 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additionar Judicial First crass Magistrate at Warangal, are hereby quashed. . Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed \ SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, Warangal. 2. The S.H.O, Matwada Police Station, Waragal District. 3. One CC to SRl. J SESHAGIRI RAO Advocate [OPUC]- 4. One CC to M/s. G. Sumati (Amicus Curraie)Advocate [OUT] 5. One CC to lrrigation and Command Area-[OUT] 6. One CC to SRl. G SUMATHI Advocate [OUT] 7. Two CD CoPies (+- PK/SA I { 1 l ,:)i,. '( c a II DEC 2U[ \..\ HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 OiIII=til CRLP.No.2903 of 2025 OWED/QUASHED ( ,{ \