The v. sfafe of Maharashtral.The the

2. Mr. Tanukula Jeevaratnam, S/o Late Devadasu, Age 79 years, Occ. Ex- service man, R/o H No. 1-1-415, Dhaba Garden, Kapramandal, Medchal District, Telangana- 500 062. ...Respondent No.2/ Defacto Complainant 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 in CC No. 16111-2021 and consequently quash CC No. 16111 2021 on the file of the lll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Medchal, Athevelly and all proceedings related thereto. l.A. NO: 2 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings arising out of and in relation to CC No. 16111 2O21 on the file of the lll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class At Medchal, Athevelly. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order in lA.no.1 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.3366 of 2025 dt.22.04.2025 and dismiss the criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. AMBATI SAI VARUN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. SHALINI SAXENA, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINA PETITION No.33 oF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitionei - accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1611 of 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 Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

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

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner herein is facing false allegations and that they are in possession of accused Nos.1 and 2, 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.1B3. He further submitted that though the cje-facto complainant has ( t allegedly purchased the Plot No.183, there is a house situated in \ .- \ =r f-.-:I! ) PlotNo.lE3belongingtothirdpartyandsince,thereisnoopenplot f. availableunderPlotNo.ls3,sheisencroachingintothePlot No.l82belongingtoaccusedNos.land2.Thepetitionerhereinis nowayconnectedwiththePlotNo.l82orl83andthathehappens tobearelativeofaccusedNos.land2forthesimplereasonof theirrelationship,heisdraggedintothepresentproceedings'which isnotproper.Thepetitionercounselhasfurthersubmittedthata civilsuitwasfiledvideo.S.No.540of2ol8byPeesariMalllamma astheactualowneroftheplotwasinabroad,whoisnoneother thanthedaughterofPeesariMallammaandwhenherdaughter returnedtolndia,PeesariMallammahaswithdrawnthesaidsuit, andafreshsuitwasfiledbyaccusedNo.l,whoistheactualowner oftheplotNo.ls2,thesaidsuithasbeendecreedon06.0l.202lin herfavour.Afterthesaiddecree'thepresentcomplaintisgivenby thede.factocomplainantwithoutanySpecificdate,timeoralleged overtactsofthepetitioner,justbearinggrudgeagainsttheaccused Nos.landZherein.Justforthereasonthatthepetitioneristheir relative, he is dragged in to this case and that he is no way connectedandtherefore,prayedtoquashtheproceedingsagainst the petitioner 3 4' The rearned counser for the respondent has submitted that the de-facto comprainant has purchased prot No.1g3 and that the petitioners under the guise of rnjunction order, are encroaching into the rand of the de-facto comprainant and that in the year 201g, the de-facto comprainant got constructed a basement with a compound walr' but the petitioners herein arong with accused Nos. 1 and 2 have demorished the basement and compound war. Frence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Learned Assistant public prosecutor has submitteo, that during the course of investigation, scene of offence panchanama was conducted and that it is discloses the demolil. rtts uEllrolltlon as alleged by the de-facto comprainant.

6. perused the record. 7 ' The petitioner counser has reried upon Kaitashben Nrahendrabhai pater vs. sfafe of Maharashtral.The the petitioner counser is that when there is a vexatious compraint and with a generar and omnibus aregations, to prevent the abuse of process of raw, the proceedings shourd be quashed. rn the said case, a compraint section 4gg-A of rpc was fired by the de{acto contention of SCC Online SC 2621 i I i I I I I I i t i I I i l F 4 -I complainant against her husband with omni bus allegations' The Apex Court has discussed the principle laid down in Achin Gupta it was observed that there are Vs. State of Haryana2'wherein under the three circumstances under which the inherent lurisdiction Section 482 olthe 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 iustice' 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 petitioner herein that the petitioner has trespassed and demolished the basement and compound wall of the de-facto complainant'

8. He has further Crl.P-No'4973 of 202 allegations leveled bY A of the lPC, and thus relied upon a decision of this Court tn 5, wherein the petitioners were facing bald the de-facto complainant under Section 498- , the quash Petition was allowed'

9. He further retied upon l1 K' Aiay Kumar Vs' State of it was held that since the de-facto comptainant is not in possession' then the allegation of trespass is not Telangana3wherein r ,nr4 INSC 369 ', -,jlpg111.r t zeriuoza ,/ l I 5 maintainabre. rn the present case, the ailegations prima_facie show that the de-facto complainant is in possession of plot No.183 and that she has arso constructed a compound wail and a basement, which was aflegedry demorished by the petitioner nerein arong with accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the facts differ and the said decision cannot be applied. 1O: The petitioner herein is accused No.3 and is a relative of accused Nos.1 and 2. Further the materiar submitted arong with the petition shows that there is a house in prot No.1g3, whire prot No'182 is vacant. The aregations raised by the de_facto complainant is that in her open ptot, she has raised a basement, which was demorished by accused Nos.1 and 2 atong with the petitioner herein, the crime Detair Form revears the aileged, demolition. Thus, the ailegations in the case point out the afleged offence under sections 447,42L 506 read with 34 of rpc against the petitioner herein. The truth in the ailegations wourd be made out after a full-fledged trial.

11. ln the resurt, the criminat petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court, untess his presence is specificaily required by the triar court during the \ t \ 6 course of trial, provided that he shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing' Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand k closed To, SD/. A.JAYASREE STANT REGISTRAR OFFICER ASSI -a\ 't, t'\I t i : ' ,, //TRUE COPY//

1. The lll Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum V Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fi rst C lass, [t/edchal,Athevelly. | I

2. The XXlll - Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal Court, Cyberabad. (Call for necords)

3. The Station House Officer, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda. 4. Two CCS to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS at Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. One CC to Mr. AMBATI SAI VARUN, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies RCTPSL:w' i i :*. .'-.-{ HIGH COURT DATED: 25/0912025 ORDER CRLP.No.3366 of 2025 The Griminal Petition is Disposed of. 2 l0 la,( ?i.lF, P, 0l rruu I[rq * [.] t 8f1^,r i't ''