The High Court · 2025

1. Mr. K Ravi, S/o Late K RamChandra Raju, Aditya-Royal palm, Viila No.8, 2. Smt. Saitaia Katidindi, Wo_ Katidindi Ravi, Aditya_ R_oyal palm, Villa No.8, 3. Mr. C.Ramaraiu. .S/o C. Satyanarayan Raju plot_627. Flat No._201 , Vama eutub shahiromos Roao, snariGi, Hililulo_sooooe lG'?' 3 a r'' E'i t rvr i va p u r i' nt", ol iff H]l?l,,YrUl, 3:l -ia;al' H,' i vl"p,,., " AND ...PET|TIoNERS/ACCUSED NOS. ,t To 3 '1. The State of Telanoana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court for the state of reransana"at Hyueiaoa,i;'thil;d; b;id;sheerabad porice station 2. Smt. Bulbul Aganrual, R/o D.No.A_S, ClE, Balanagar, Hyderabad_SOO042 ... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section .482 of .Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds cri,ii"li i"tition, the High court may be pleased to call for the.r:9glds and quash the proceedings against the "r petitioners in cc No. 156 0f 2o2o on tne ire oi itt Metroporitan Magistrate at Medchar for the offences ounishabre unour s""tion ,' o+a,t+2,r2r,427,506 rrw 34 IPC in the interest of justice. r.A. NO: 1 0F 2021 Petition under Section .4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or cri'i,inli ietition, the High court may be pleased to stay afl furthet proc^e^edings inctuJing appearance of the petitioners in connection with cc.No 156 or 2020 o"n tn" rir" oiirirvretropoiiian nrrgi.iiJi" rt Medchal, for the offences punishable ,n0", Sl"tion s 44g,342,323,427,506 rtw 34 IPC pending disposat of quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition and upon hearrng the arguments of Ms. Monica, learned counsel representing Sri P SUBASH' Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. E. GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No l and none appeared for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.26O3 oF2o.21 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. seeking to call for the records and quash the proceedings against petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 in c.c.No. r56 of 2o2o on the file of the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medcha_l (for short, "the trial Court',) for the offences under Sections 323, 342, 422, 44a, 506 and 34 of I.p.C.

2. Heard Ms-Monica, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Subhash, learned counseI for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.Og.2O19 at 16:1O hours, respondent No.2/d_e rfircto complainant fiied a complaint against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 herein stating that on 24.Oa.2OI9 at about lO:0O hours, about seventy (7O) people came to her house forcefully; that one lad_v came inside with her maids and took away her cell phone, locked respondent No.2 and her sister-in-law in a room for four hours, harassed them and forcefully made her to u.rite a letter to vacate the house; that It:\\ i I 2 respondentNo.2andhersisterin-lawsignedonthepaperand occupied the house and. threw away all the things and valuables; that they disconnected electricity, water supply' beat her sister-in-law ald threatened them with dire consequences' Basing on the said facts, the present complaint is registered' Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petltloner 4. No. I is the owner of plot Nos' 149 and 150' admeasuring 2'800 sq. ft. in survey Nos.12, L3, 14, 19 to 22' 28 and 29 in NCL Enclave of Pet Basheerabad Viilage, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that the said premises \\ias given on rent to No.2 vide lease deed dated father-in-Iaw of resPondent 16.OA.2Ol7, by the petitioner, from 01'08'2O17 to 3O'06'2018 on a monthly rent C@ Rs'4O,7OO/ -; that petitioner No 3 is the caretaker of property and as per para No' 16 of the said lease deed it was agreerl that the lessee and lessor have right to terminate the tenancy by giving two (2) months notice to other partv and that lessee had to maintain all the furniture' fixtures in good condition and handover the same to the lessor at the time of vacating the Premrses

5.Hefurtherstatedthaton3o.ol.2ol8,petitionerNo.lgave notice to father-in-law of respondent No.2 to vacate the premises 7 and hand over the vacant possession of property along with the fixtures and furniture in good condition; that respondent No.2 did not vacate the premises, due to which, petitioner No. t herein and two (2) others filed civil suit vide o.S.No.203 0f 20rg against father-in-law of respondent No.2 before the learned principal Senior Civil Judge_cum_Assistan t Sessions Judge, at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District for vacating the premises and handing over the vacant possession of property to petitioner No. 1; that respondent No.2 gave a letter to the petitioner No.1 on 24.OA.2O19 stating that they are vacating the premises assuring that rent will be settled next Therefore, he states that admittediy, there were civil suits pending between the parties and to harass the petitioners, a false complaint is filed against petttioners and if enquired further, the offences alleged against the petitioners wiil not withstand the scrutiny of law. peiying on the decisions passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another Vs. State of Karnataka and anotherl, Sudhakar @ Sudharasan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of police, Srirangam police Station, Trichy, Tamil Nadu2 and Kalyan 3:i-,"Txf,l: (sc) 220 I No 381 of 20 18 Ansxlg Ou( of Specrat l_cavc petirrol (Cr tl No 9297 ot 20 l6 -' - .r \ \ -I + Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and anothera' he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition'

6. Opposing the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that upon thorough investigation' respondent-Police arrayed the petitioners as accused for the aileged offences; that unless and until full-fledged triai is conducted' the truth r'vill not come to light. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition' 7 . Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court is seized of the fact that admittedly' a lease deed dated 16.08.2017 was executed in between petitioner No 1 and father-in-law of respondent No'2 stating that the lease sha1l be commencing from Ol'Oa'2O17 to 3O 06'2O18 on a monthly rent of Rs.4O,7OO/- for an area admeasuring 2'8OO sq' ft The prosecution, in order to support their contention' relied on statements of witnesses namely LWs' 1 to 3 LWl is the de facto complainant, who stated ttrat on 24 'O8'2O19 the incident has taken place at about 10:OO hrs, but the said complaint is filed at 04:00 P.M. i.e., after a lapse of six (6) hours' So far as LW2 is concerned, he is none other than the sister-in-law of LWl None I Crnnrnal APPeal No.'1820 ol2oo7 7 5 of them are signatories to the iease deed. The version of LW3 is that, on receiving a telephone call from the father of de facto complainant, LW3 went to house of respondent No.2 at 02:15 p.M and found that the land lady along with some persons threr.v the articles of respondent No.2 outside and kept them in Modern Living Furniture Shop. In the evidence, LW3 stated that the land lady has assaulted respondent No.2. It is not stated in the said evidence that he can identify the land lady and that he u,ent there being their family friend. LW4 is the panch witness and his name is not available in the statements of listed witnesses. LWs.4 to 7 are panch witnesses. LWg is the Investigation Officer u.ho filed charge sheet. B. It is pertinent to note here that O.S.No.203 of 2O iB is 'dismissed as not pressed, vide docket order dated la.10.2023. The said O.S. is filed in the year 20lB and the present complaint has been filed on 24.Oa.2olg. However, the said fact of dismissal of O.S. is not brought to the notice respondent-police in the said complaint' No doubt the witnesses reried upon Lry the prosecution are interested witnesses, the incident had occurred in the broad day light and complaint has been fi1ed at 04:O0 p.M. wherein no reference has been made pertaining to the presence of LWs.2 and I I t t I \ .-" r - 3 at that time ol occurrencc of the incident' Lastiy' at no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that about seventy (70) persons can be accomrrodated in 2,8O0 sq' ft' house at one time' Hence' relying on the decisions cited (supra 1' 2 and 3) and the decision passed blr the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs' Bhajan Lala, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the F.l.R' or comPlaint are so absurd and inherentlv improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach to a just conclusion that there is suffrcient ground for proceeding against Petitroners

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed arrd the proceedings in so far as petitioners/ accused Nos'l to 3 are concerned in C.C.No' 156 of 2O2O on the file of the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal for the offences under Sections 323, 342, 4'27, 448' 5O6 and 34 of I'P'C' are hereby quashed. Miscella neous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' @),)u7ret" Courl G'*s 335 SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY tA SITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER + nq2 s"/,P To,

1. The Xll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal' 2. The Station House Officer, Petbasheerabad Police Station' Cyberabad 3. One CC to Sri P Subash Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad. [OUTI

5. Two CD CoPies l.--.;\---- GP.,,/PSL ' '.::'*irr..il HIGH COURT DATED:1010712025 1HE S14 i \. R 1) _l 1E AIJE 2U5 \ I ', r {_' ^ r ../ ,,, ORDER CRLP.No.2603 of 2021 THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED \