The High Court · 2025

2. Mr. Tanukula Jeevaratnam, S/o Late Devadasu. Age 79 years, Occ. Ex- service man, Ryo H No. 1-14l5, Dhaba Garden, Kapramandal. Medchal District, Telangana- 500 062. ...RespondenUDeFacto Cornplainant Petition under Seclion 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 in CC No.1611/ 2021 and consequently quash CC No.1611/2021 on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Medchal, Athevelly and all proceedings related thereto. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 9:,p]:lt+ to stay atl-further proceedings. arising out of and in retation to CC Np. 16111 2021 on the fite of tit Additio4at {unio} Civit Judge€um_X Additionat Judicial Magistrate of First crass At ttleocnar,'Aileierrv - l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between Mr. Tanukula Jeevaratnam, S/o Late De :eryice q,", ruJifryp.r-1:+rs, Dh"G 8:fi:Hj *3;,::.ffi35: fffr"EI; District, Tetangana- S0O 062. ...Petitioner/Respondent No. 2 Pannala Tirumata. Occ: house wife palnajg BJragya Reddy, Age 54 years, 8/o H No- 1-19-7'sroz. siJJirrhi'coruny. Hi .Tension Lir Netaji Nagar X n-olor 'xipo*"anorr, Medchar District, Terangana- uoo oull' ^S,i?p3{fl Nagar X Roads. Kapramandar-rvieoctrir oi"t i"i'T"lr;gE;; s00 062. '_T{q"!!1?f,q"3li.'ffi'Jr5il$t,,+q;".,*,ffi ,t?;f "?,1i The state of reranoana, station House -ofroer Rachakoncia. Reor6senteo tnrough iti public prosecutor, High court for th6 ' -- ' State of Tetangana at HyOerabldl porice station Jawahar Naoar. ...Respondents/petitioners AND 1 2 3 ...RespondenURespondent Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminit Feiition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the order in lA.No. 1 of 2oesia,t"o"zz.oq.zozs. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri AMBATI sAl VARUN' Advocate for tfie Petitioner and the Ms. Shalini Saxena, Assistant public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1, and sri ralla Ajay Kukmar Goud, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.337O OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 16l ot 2021 on the file of the learned lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, Athevelly, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short "lPC").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Ambati Sai Varun, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein are facing false allegations and that they are in possession of Plot No.182 and that the petitioners have a valid Sale Deed and a Gift Deed in their favour establishing their ownership on Plot No.182 and that the de-facto complainant is relying on a fabricated document and alleges that she is the owner of Plot No.183. He further submitted that though the de-facto complainant hqs allegedly purchased the Plot No.183, there is a house situated 2 EID,J Ctl.P. No.337O o, 2025 in Plot No.183 belonging to a third pafi and since, there is no open plot available under Plot No.183, and that he is encroaching into Plot No.182 belonging to petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a civil suit was filed vide O.S.No.540 of 2018 by one Peesari Mallamma, mother of petitioner No.1 on behalf of petitioner No.1, as she was abroad, and when petitioner No.1 returned to lndia, Peesari Mallamma has withdrawn the said suit, and a fresh suit was filed by petitioner No.1, who is the actual owner of the plot No.182. The said suit has been decreed on

06.01.2021 in her favour. After the said decree, the present complaint is given by the de-facto complainant without any specific date, time or alleged overt acts of the petitioners, just bearing grudge against the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 herein. He relied upon the decision in Kailashben Mahendrabhai patet Vs. State of Maharashtral and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant has submitted that the de-facto complainant has purchased Plot No. l83 and that the petitioners under the guise of lnjunction Order, are encroaching into the land of the de-facto I 20?qcc ontinc sc 262 I I I 3 ETD,J Crl.P. No.337O ot 2025 complainant and that in the year 2018, the de-facto complainant got constructed a basement with a compound wall, but the petitioners herein along with accused No.3 have demolished the basement and compound wall. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that during the course of investigation, scene of offence panchanama was conducted and that it is discloses the demolition as alleged by the de-facto complainant.

6. Perused the record.

7. The contention of the petitioner counsel is that when there is a vexatious complaint and with a general and omnibus allegations, to prevent the abuse of process of law, the proceedings should be quashed. ln Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. Sfafe of Maharashtra, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC was filed by the de-facto complainant against her husband with omni bus allegations. The Apex Court has discussed the principle laid down in Achin Gupta Vs. Stafe of Haryana2, wherein it was observed that there are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction under the 'zoz+ INsc 3eg { ! 4 ETD,J Crl.P. No.337O of 2025 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Since there were omni bus allegations against the petitioner, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioner. ln the present matter, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioners herein that the petitioners have trespassed and demolished the basement and compound wall of the de-facto complainant.

8. He has further relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl.P.Na.4973 af 2025, wherein the petitioners were facing bald allegations leveled by the de-facto complainant under Section 498-A of the lPC. and thus, the quash petition was allowed.

9. He further relied upon the decision in K. Ajay Kumar Vs. Stafe of Telangana3 wherein it was held that since the de-facto complainant is not in possession, then the allegation of trespass is not maintainable. ln the present case, the allegations prima-facie show that the de-facto complainant is in possession of PIot No.183 and that she has also constructed a compound wall and a basement, which was allegedly demolished by the petitioners ( t 'MANUn'L^ 283/2024 { 5 EID,J Crl.P. No.337O oI 2025 herein along with accused No.3. Therefore, the facts differ from the present case and the said decision c€lnnot be applied.

10. The material submitted along with the petition shows that there is a house in Plot No.183, while Plot No.182 is vacant. The allegations raised by the de-facto complainant are that in his open plot, he has raised a basement, which was demolished by petitioners herein along with accused No.3. The Crime Detail Form reveals the alleged demolition. Thus, the allegations in the case point out the alleged offences under Sections 447, 427,506 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein. The truth in the allegations would be made out after a full-fledged trial.

11. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing before the trial court and they shall appear before the trial court as and when their presence is required. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SO/- A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY" ECTION OFFICER 1 TheXXlllMetropolitanMagistrateatMedchalCourt'Cyberabad'

2. The Station House Ofticer, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Medchal Ois{rict. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

4. OneCCtoSRl AMBATI SAI VARUNAdvocate[OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI TALLA AJAY KUMAR GOUD, Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL w / HIGH COURT ( DATED:16110/,2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3}VO ot 2O25 oB lHE sr4 )"4: (' a A .J 28lrtt M .t l)€sp ATCH f-O * DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q .dd #w