Criminal Petition No. 3424 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.4 in C.C.No.2881 of 2022 in S.R.No.3962 of 2022 on the file of

the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 447,427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, i86O (for short 'lPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that on lg .O7 .2C-21 responden[ No2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that he is the registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder representing respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 had purchased plot No.704 measuring 300 square yards out of Survey No.527 (part), situated at Nidigonda Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Jangaon District. The sale deed was executed by Samala Linga Murthy, acting as GPA holder of the original landowners uide GPA No. 18/2009 dated 27.10.2OO9, and 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3424 of 2025 also in his individual capacily. The said sale deed was registered vide Document No.3869/201 I dated 04.O7 .2Oll. It was later discovered by the principal that Samala Linga Murthy had deceived him and other plot owners by registering the same land in acres to others even after the cancellation of the GPA. The land was allegedly sold to K.E. Gopu Joseph Praveen Reddy, Gade Raja Reddy, and Gade Aruna, who further alienated the land to several other individuals, including Gajjela Gopal, Yeruva Bala Priyanka, and Yeruva Fatima, thereby creating a fraudulent chain of transactlons

3. Upon becoming aware of the cancellation of the GPA, the Sub-Registrar of Wardhannapet issued a notice to Samala Linga Murthy and recorded an entry in the Encumbrance Certihcate (EC) indicating the cancellation of the said document. A criminal case was also registered against Samala Linga Murthy in FIR No.2001 of 2O15 dated

24.O9.2OI5. Furthermore, the Sub Registrar addressed a letter dated 20.08.2015 to the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer (MRO), requesting not to mutate the said property. However, the accused managed to gct the mutation done by SKS,J Crl.P.No.3424 of 2O25 influencing ofhcials. Subsequently, the original landowners filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officcr (RDO), and orders were passed in their favor uide Appeal Nos.ll3379/2016 and ll3380l2Ot6 dared O9.03.2O18. The accused then challenged the said orders before thc Joint Collector, but the Joint Collector upheid the decision the RDO, uide Case Nos.B2l 1662/2OO8 and 82 / 1663 / 2OO8 dated 29.O8.2O18.

4. During the COVID-19 pandemrc, accused Samala Linga Murthy, K.E. Gopu Joseph Praveen Reddy, Gade Raja Reddy, Gade Aruna, Gajjela Gopal, Yer-uva Bala priyanka, Yeruva Fatima, Damera Satyanarayana, Gade Sudhakar Reddy, Lingala Joga Reddy, Thaduri Nagaraju, Veluru Laxmi Narayana, Yeruva Lourdur Mar Reddy, Anandapu Srinivas, Anandapu Lakshmi, Krishna, and Veluri Laxmi Narayana of JV Builders and Infrastructure allegedly formed a group and began encroaching upon the land of the complainant and that of others. They removed demarcation stoncs, tree guards, direction boards, and fencing stones. On O7.O7 .2021 , during a routine visit by site supervisor Mr. Ghouse and surveyor Mr. Madhu, it was observed that the 4 SKS,J Ctl.P.No.3424 of 2025 accused had encroached upon the site. When the complainant, along with Mr. Ghouse and Mr. Madhu, visited the site at about 2:3O p.m., the accused reportedly obstructed them, operated a JCB, and threatened them with dire consequences. Again, on 19.07.2021 at around 12:00 p.m., accused Veluri Laxmi Narayana o[ JV Builders and Infrastructure allegedly arrived at the site, began forming mud roads, and initiated illegal layout forma[ion. When confronted, the accused again threatened the complainant and his representatives, warning them not to return to the

5. Basing on the said complaint, the Police rcgistered a case in Crime No.172 of 2O2l for the olfences punishable under Section s 42O, 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/accused No.4 hled the present criminal petition.

6. Heard Sri M. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3424 of 2025 Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearir-rg on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Sri Mohd. Sadiq Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of rcspondent Nos.2 and 3.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to FIR No.172 of 2021, the police conducted a detailed investigation and filed a Final Report dated

15.09 .2022 , categorically stating that the dispute is of a purely civil nature and that no criminal offence is made out. He furthcr submitted that aggrieved by the said Final Report, the respondents filed a Protest Petition bearing Sr.No.3962 ot 2022 dated 03.12.2022. The trial Court having consrdered the material on record was pleased to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 42O, 447, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of IpC against accused Nos. 1 to 8, and the case was registered as C.C. No.28g 1 of 2022 on the same day.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are parties to several civil disputes along with the accused named in the FIR. These disputes 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3424 of 2025 pertain to the same subject property and arc currently pending before various courts, including O S No'1Ol of 2Oi5 before the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon. Despite this, the complaint seeks to portray a civil dispute as a criminal offence. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in taking cognrzance without apprcciating the pendency of multiple civil suits between the same parties and in relation to the same land. The complaint lacks any specific or direct allegation against the petitioner' The essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not met, and the complaint is nothing more than an attempt to give a criminal coior to a dispute that is essentially civil in nature' g. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the litigating before competent civil courts in several suits, accused are already . namely O.S.Nos. 10i, 150, and 151 of 2015, O'S No'72O of 2017, O.S.No.63 and 28 of 2022, and O.S.Nos 982 to 988 of 2O2 1. Despite this, the complainant has initiated parallel criminal proceedings purely to harass the petitioner and gain an unfair advantage in the civil litigation He pointed out that earlier criminal proceedings initiated against the - 7 sKs,J Crl.P.No.3424 of 2025 petitioner and others in FIR Nos.529 of 2Ol5 and 755 of 2015, registered at Panjagutta police Station, Hyderabad, led to trrals in C.C.Nos.993 of 2016 and 570 of 2077 respectively. In both cases, the accused were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. due to failure of the prosecutlon to prove any of the allegations. It is also submitted that in a similar manner, FIR No.2Ol of 2015 was registered at Wardhannapet police Station against accused No.1 for olfences under Sections 403, 405, 406, 4Og,412, 4i8, and 42O IpC, which led to C.C. No.81 of 2O18 before thc III Additional Judicial Magistrate, Warangal. This too pertains to the same subject matter and remains pending.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complaint in FIR No. 172 of 2O2l lacks any specihc allegations, dates, or times relating to the involvement of the petitione r. 'lhe vague assertions in the statements of LW 1 to LW7 are formal and generalized in nature, made merely to implicate the petitioner. There is no overt act or material to suggest any criminal intent or active participation by the petitioner and that the petitioner acquired the subject land lawfully through a registered sale deed dated OT.O7 .2OlS I I SKS,J Crl.P.No.3424 of 2O25 bearing Document No.1041 of 2015, from M/s. Amrutha Investment Limited, represented by its Director and GPA holder Samala Linga Murthy (Accused No.1). The vendor held valid title through a registered document, and the petitioner's possession is fully lawful. Therefore, the learned counsel emphasizes that none of the essential ingredients as alleged in the complaint. The inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the FIR and charge sheet is therefore unwarranted and constitutes a clear abuse of process. Multiple FIRs filed against the petitioner on the same set of facts, vide FIR Nos. ll7 to i25 and 135, 142, 143 (Lingalaghanpur PS) and FIR Nos. 168 to 774,190, 191, and 209 (Raghunathpally PS). 1 i . In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Tarak Dash Mukherjee v. State of U.P.r, which held that multiple FIRs on the same facts and by the same complainant amount to abuse of process. Similarly, in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhandz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where 1 (2022 SCC Online SC 731) '1zot:; tt scc 6z: 9 SKS,J Crl.P-No,3424 of 2025 a civil dispute is given a criminal cloak, criminal proceedings ought to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allou'ing this criminal pet it ion.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents fi1ed counter afhdavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the Protest Petition ltled by respondent No.2 was entertained after due verification of the Final Report submitted by the Police, and based on the witness statements, the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance and registered the case as C.C.No.288l of 2022. whiie it is admitred that o.S.No.101 of 2015 is pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, the cause of action in that civil suit is distinct and separate from the subject criminal case. The criminal proceedings are based on clear acts of cheating and trespass committed by the petitioner and others. The complaint specihcally discloses acts attributable to the petrtioner. He further submitted that although the civil suit pertains to cancellation of a registered sale deed, the criminal complaint addresses the unlawful entry of the petitioner into the company land and acts of a .- 10 SKS'J Crl.P.I{o.3424 of 2O25 criminal intimidation and damage The two proceedings are independent, and the pendency of the civil suit cannot render the criminal case unsustainable'

13. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has attempted to confuse the Court by referring to FIRs, criminal cases and civil suits that are not related to the Petitioner and they pertain to accused No 1' He further contended that the complaint filed in C.C.No.2881 of 2022 clearly mentions the date and time of the incident as 07.O7.2O2L at 2"3O PM, and the statements of the complainant, witnesses, and victims affirm the active role of the petitioner in the alleged criminal acts' He further contended that the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1041 of 2015 dated' 07'O7'2015, under which the Petitioner claims title, is not valid' The GPA relied upon by the vendor (accused No. 1) was not genuine and is falsely referenced in the sale deed. The claim of the petitioner to lawful ownership is therefore unsustainable and that there the petitioner is ample material on record to show that dishonestly induced the company of the de facto 77 SKS,J Crl.P. 0.3424 of 2O2S complainant, trespassed on the property, caused damage, and used threats and intimidation.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner and her husband, who is politically influential, have misused their influence to interfere with the police investigation. Although the police initially seized bulldozers and equipment from the site, the case was later closed under poritical pressure, which necessitated the respondents to hle a protest petition to reopen the case. Regarding the lack of multiple FiRs, he contended that that while other FIRs were registered in related matters, the present case (FIR No.I72 of 2021) is the only one rnvolving the petitioner and relates to a distinct incident. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

15. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the materiar ava able on record, it is evident that multiple FiRs have been registered under the said survey numbers, fraudulent transactions even after the cancellation of the GPA The allegations in the complaint reveal that desplte alleging continued t2 SKS,J c.rl.P.No.3424 oI2025 cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, subsequent alienations of the land were carried out, which raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of such transactrons

16. It is also evident from the record that a number of civil suits are pending between the parties in relation to the same property. However, pendency of civil litigation does not automatically preclude initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings where distinct offences such as cheating, criminal trespass, criminal intimidation, and mischief are alleged.

17. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely civil in nature is not entirely tenable at this stage, in view of the specific allegations made in the complaint and supported by witness statements, including the details of the alleged incident dated' OZ .O7 .202 1 . The report of the Investigating Officer, which stated that there was no evidence of damage or threat, is not conclusive in nature a.rd does not by itself warrant quashing of proceedings, 13 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3424 of 2025 especially in the face of a Protest Petition that has been duly entertained and acted upon by the learned Magistrate'

18. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is stated to have acquired the land under a registered sale deed dated 07.O7.2015. However, the validity of such sale deed itself is under challenge on the ground that the vendor lacked authority due to the earlier cancellation of GPA' The factual dispute requires detailed adjudication and cannot be summarily determined in a quash proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

19. The contention that multipie FIRs amount to abuse of process may hold merit where the allegations are identical and pertain to the same set of facts However, the record exist, the Present one indicates that while several FIRs specifrcally relates to the incident contains allegations against the petitioner based on independent facts. As such, the present FIR cannot be said d,ated 07 .O7 .202 1 and to be a mere repetition of earlier FIRs' 1,4 SKS,J Crl.P, 0.3424 of2025

20. In view of the above, and having regard to the fact that serious allegations of cheating, trespass, and threat are made, which are supported by pima /acie material, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

21. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// A .,;"/if *''#t?[EF SECTION O FFTCER To,

1. The Co urt of the Principle Judicial First Class Ma strate at Janagaon The Station House Officer' Raghunathpally Police Station, Janagaon by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of 2 -lur 3 FTh Te f Telangana, R Hyderabad Co ep. r-r f) VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUCI HD SADIO ALI' Advocate tOPUCI c.A +" " e State o langana' 4. One CC to SRI M' 5. One CC to SRI MO 6. TWO CD CoPies \k Pcsd/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 ( a ldE sr 21 IUE {- .) I I !) ''.'----"' "' r, ^\t,h \. zlE :ll :'ll o.+,1 D TC\Ii ORDER CRLP.No.3424 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

1.@ \nr'*