The High Court · 2025

stated in the Memorand,r":i":::;: *#r#,_,,j;, ;: I; pleased to quash ihe proceedings in C.C.No.66 2 of 2021 on the First Class Magistrate at Jangaon, Jangaon District. ", ctrcumstances h Court may be file of Judicial t.A. NO: 10F2025 petition under Section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Membrandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of a' further proceedings incruding appearance of the petitioner in c'c No 662 0f 2021 0n the fire of Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Jangaon, Jangaon District pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C Damo Reddy representing Sri C Ruthwik Reddy' Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy' Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No l and of Sri MV Rai Kumar Gabriel' Advocate for Respondent Nos 2&3' The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIITAL PETTTION No.3684 oF 2O2s OR.DER: This criminal petition is hled by the petitioner seeking the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.662 of 2O2l on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Jangaon, Jangaon District, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 426,447 and 506 of IpC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants were the owners and possessors of a house plot admeasuring 372.22 square yards situated in Sy.No.79 of Jangaon Town and District, who purchased the plot through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.30g2/20 19 dated 23.O2.2O1g . Later, they discovered errors in the boundary descriptions and rectified them through a registered rectification deed uide Document No.79S9 l2Ol9 dated 07.06.2019. After purchase, they cleaned the land, hlled a large pit using a JCB, and applied for regularization under the Layout Regularization Scheme, 2O2O, paying the required fees. While the complainants were away due to a family 2 doctor rn medicai emergency' lhe petitionet' a. "tttol Jangaon, allegedly' trespassecl into their piot in December 2O2O, dttger boreweli' and began construction' Upon learning th€ same, the complainants lodged a complaint with the Jangaon Police on 17 '12 '2O2O ' but no FIR was registered' They later approached the Police Commissioner' Warangal' and the Municipai Commissioner' Jangaon The Municipal authorities cancelled the building permission o{ petitioner uia proceedings in ROC No'Gl/ 1543l2O2l dated 07'01'2021' Aggrieved thereby' the petitioner frled W P'No 864 of 2O2l before this Court' and this Court remanded the matter for fresh inquiry'

3. The Municipal Commissioner' by order dated 04.O3.2O21' directed both parties to resolve the title dispute in a competent civil Court' Subsequently' the petitioner hled W.P.No.6586 of 2O2L and obtained interim suspension orders 19.O3.2021' AllegedlY taking advantage of the interrm orders, the petitioner is said to have re-entered the plot and resumed constructron The comPlainants alleged that the petitioner's Plot, as Per his own documents, was located over behind a Petrol PumP, and in 2OO square Yards awaY' .j) 3 wirh the -, rte complainants differen t survey numbers (7g, 80, and gl), whereas, their plot exclusively lay in Sy.No.79 and that there is Lrtere ts alleged illegal trespass, criminal intim;a^ r;_ ^"r:L aid or po,ice and ;:_;T::1T:,ross produced saie deeds, rectificrr;^- ..,^- , - and other supporting;.:-:"" ,:, ;. ,:J:.il":; that the facts disclose d pima facie offences under Sections 426,442, and 5O6 IpC, and accordingly cognizance was taken and complaint was registered as CC.No. 1662/2021 for enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri C.Ruthwick Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri l\it.\,riyskanada Reddy, iearned Assistant pubiic Prosecutor for ""; Sri MV.Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel for respondent respondent No. 1 _ State, Nos.2 and 3.

5. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent ald has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. He contended that no such incident, as alleged in the .._ 4 .] complaint, ever took place' and the said complaint was deliberately flled with an intention to harass anrl blackmail the petitioner' He averred that the dispute' if any' is purely .civil in nature, but the respondents have attempted to give it acriminalcolourbylodgingafalsecomplaint.Helamented that the triai Court has erroneously taken cognizance of the complaint in a routine and mechanical manner without proper appreciation of the facts' which amounts to an abuse of process of law'

6. He incessantly submitted that the petitioner is the absoluteownerand.possessorofPlotNo.A'7llsituatedin Survey Nos. 79,80, and 81 at Suryapet Road' Jangaon' having acquired the same through a registered saie deed bearing Document No'485 of 2O00 executed by the original pattadar - Sri Cholleti Papi Reddy' He articulated that the petitioner had applied for regularization of the plot under the Layout Regularization Scheme ot 26 12'2016' and the same was duly approved after physical inspection by the Municipal commissione r, J arrgaon, vide proceedings dated ll '08'2017 and subsequent.ly, the petitioner obtained buiiding permission for construction of a residential buildrng (Stilt + 3 ,) uPPer floors) on 27 .o7 .2019, and construction commenced accordingly. l lowever, during the construction, 3 unlawfully interfered with the construction respondents Nos. 2 ancl activity of petitioner without any legal right, petitioner lo lorlgc a complaint with the police. Prompting the

7. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondents have themselves liled O.S. No. SO4 of 2021 for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which clearly indicates that they are not in possession of the said property and thereby, the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 426 and 442 IpC are not made out. He asserted that it is a well se tlled proposition of law that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal proceedings, and the present complaint is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, r.r,hile advocating that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged against him, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.662 ot 2021.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assistalt public Prosecutor, vchemently opposed the submissions made by "{ 6 1 and contendecl that basing on omplaint, rvhercr itttler' serious lhc Proceedings Ie arned corrnsel for Petitioner the averments made in the c allegations are leveled against u'e re initizrted, implicating him as accused for lhe o[fences as alleged While advocating that the matter reqLltres tull tledged tnal, he prayed this Court to dismtss the Crirninal Petil.lon' the Petitioner' (-). Leierned counsel for respondent Nos'2 and 3' subnritted that the grounds urged by the petitioner are 'whollv unLenable and do not absolve him of the criminal liakriiiL-'* arising from the offences under Sectio ns 426' 447 ' ancl 505 IPC' Thc is attemPting to petitioner, by raising unrelated civil issues' deflcct attention from the criminal trcsPass and cncroachment committed bY him. He aveircd that the complaint hled by the resPondents clearly discloscs the cognizable offences, and [i1c s.rme was commission of supported by documentary evidence He averrecl that the petitioner, by taking advantage of interim orders passed by t[-ris Court in writ proceedings, had illegally entcrecl into the respondents property and raised unauthoriscd construction' l-urther, that though the Municipal Commissioner initially cancelled the building permission granted to thc pedtioner 7 upon finding that the matter involved a title dispute, the petitioner continued to intimidate the complainants and carry on construction. He asserted that lhe land claimed by the petitioner and that of the respondents are entirely different, having distirrct boundaries and survey numbers. Despite this, the petitioner trespassed upon the respondents, land in December 2O20, dug a borewell, and laid a foundation. The respondents immediately approachecl the police on 17.72.2020, but no proper action was taken, forcing them to escalate the matter to higher authorities and also approach the Municipal Commissioner.

10. In adclition, he contended that after detailed enquiry, and upon examining the private complaint and supporting documents, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement. of respondent No.2 and rightly took cognizance of the matter on O5.O7 .2027, finding that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 426, 447, and 506 IpC. The petitioner, after a considerable delay of nearly four years, has now approached this Court seeking quashment, which clearly appears to be an afterthought. Therefore, while advocating that there are no \ merits in the criminal petition' he prayecl this CoLIrt- to clismiss the Criminal Petitton- I I. Having regard to rival submissions madc' aud on gotng tlrrough the material placed on record' is it notcd that the is that his CisPute rvith main grievance of the Petitroner respondent.s is of civil nature' and the municipal auihorltv had already directed to approach civil Court' and evetr then the complainants hled criminal case against frim' and that the r-rial Court had not considered the actual facts of thc case :ind hacl tzrken cognizance of the offence' which is nothing bttt abuse of process of law' However' at the orircr cnd ' the sfrecific stand of respondents is that there is mischief ancl trespass on the part of the petitioner' lt is their further con[entionthateventhoughthereisnopermissiongrantcd b1' the municipal authority' and the municipal authoritv had directeci to approach the civil Court' thc petitioner Construcledhouseundertheguiseofordcrpassedin\vrit petiiion, and also occupied the property Furthermore' that inspite of there being direction' the petitioner lllcd I A'No 805 of 2O2l in O.S.No.SO4 of 2O2l under Order XXXIX Rule s 1 and 2 r/u' Section 151 of C'P'C', seeking a temporanr *-- 9 lnjunction order to restrain the respondents defendants from doing further construction over the suit schedule property. Hon ever, uide order dated Og.11.2O2l in the said LA., the trial Court dismissed the same, observing that *In obedience to the ftndings giuen bg tLe Honourabre High Court and. for the reasons state-d aboue, this Court is not inclined to pass anA order against the spirit of the ord"er of the Honourable High Court as it unuld dmount to judicial impropnetg o.rtd insubordination.',

12. In other words, the trial Court observecl that it is to judicial propriety by not passin g arry de r'Louo or adhering final order in the injunction application owing to the pendency of the connected Writ petition before this Court. Considering thar W.p.No.6586 of 2O2t is pending disposal belore this.court, at this stage, it canirot be said that there are lfo averments on record, so as to constitute offences as alleged against the petitioner. Further, it is also noted that the question whether there is trespass, as alleged, or not, is to be decided after disposal of the said writ petition. 'I'herefore, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits l I 10 .i in this criminal petition' and the same is liable to be rlismissed Accordingly, this Criminai Petition is disn-rtssed- 13 Misccllaneous petitions' pending' if ant" shall stand closed SD/. P.CH.NAHABHUSHAMBA DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER tr, To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon' i il; ir;l;i;iFirst class Magiitrate 9t Jinoggn, Jangaon District - . . 3. Two CCs to the puOf ic pios-ecutor, State df Tel'ngana' High Court Buildings' + One'CC to Sri C Ruthwik Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] ; o;; ci,o sri MV. Raj Kumar GabrielAdvocate [oPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies at HYderabad (OUT) DUPSL HIGH COURT DAfED:291O712O25 ORDER CRLP.No.3684 ot 2025 ,/;c i.',-' lO 1+ NIS il6 \ > Z o I Ot' S PAI C\! * :;o DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q I Iq g