The High Court · 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 call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in S.C.No.53/2021 on the file of Hon ble Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge. Mahuhuhnagar. for the offence .llSec. 447. 427. Rlw.34 tpC and Sec. 3 (1) (r) (s) (g) SCs Sts POA Act, 2015, and same may he quashed by exercising _jurisdiction USec. 52 of Bharativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2OZ3 as against the petitioners who are accused 1 to 4. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,tlrr High Court may be pleased To STAY all further proceedings in S.C. No.53. 2021 n the file of Hon ble Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, tvlahabubnagar (-the offence U/sec. 447. 427. R,^/V. 34 IPC and Sec 3 ( l) (r) (s) (g)SC s S Ts P(,- \ Act. 2015 as filed police based on the complaint of the 2 nd respondent in FIR r r. 88 2019 including their appearance. pending disposal of main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing t e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argument; :f Sri M DAIUODAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender RE ( Veeramalla, Addl Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and S: S. RAIVA IVIOHAN RAO, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITON No.4'1 82 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petrtion is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in SC No.53 of 2021 on the file of Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 IPC and 3(1Xr)(s)(S) of the Scheduted Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC & ST Act')

2. Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Sri S. Rama Mohana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have never trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant and that they are facing false allegations in this case. He further submitted that the villagers were digging the canal which was already in existence, but the de facto complainant is under a misconception that the villagers have trespassed into his land while diqsing the canal. He further has pointed out that there are "'"/ 7 ETO,J ctl.P No.1182 ol2o2s proceedings of the District Collector, Wanaparthy, : lted 05.01.2021, in this regard stating about the existence of the : tnal abutting the land of the de facto complainant. He, therefore, pra yed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 I ls submitted that there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident of 'espass and that the petitioners have encroached into the land tf the de facto complainant while digging the alleged canal. He, tlr refore, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Perused the record.

6. lt is alleged that on 14.09.2019, in the morning hours, petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 4 have criminally tr€ spassed into the land of Ihe de facto complainant and dug a canal vith the JCB and damaged the cement poles and destroyed the crtp and when de facfo complainant tried to stop the alleged destructir n, the petitioners abused lhe de facto complainant in filthy languar; I in the name of caste. The contention of the learned counsel fo lhe petitioners is that there are proceedlngs of the District Collec or, Wanaparthy, dated 05.01.2021, showing existence of the canal A perusal of the -s_aid proceedings discloses that the Collector has e Cdressed a letter J ETO,J Crl.P. No.1182 ot 2025 to the Secretary of Telangana State Commission for SC and ST whereunder it is stated that a representation was submitted by Smt N. Kistamma w/o. S. Prakash, to enquire into the trespass into their land and removal of boundary stones and for damaging the crop by using a JCB. lt is further elicited that the Tahsildar, Amarchintha, had conducted enquiry into the matter and it was revealed that previously a Patu canal was existing in Sy. Nos.447 and 448 attached to the boundaries of the land of Kistamma and that the said Kistamma has damaged and levelled the canal and planted boundary stones and that the petitioner No. t herein and other farmers again reconstructed the canal which was exrsting therein including the Ac.0.0'1 guntas of land encroached by Kistamma. Thus, the old existing canal was reconstructed for the purpose of other farmers for ayacut of Pedda Chervu of Amarchintha Village.

7. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the wife of the de faclo complainant without knowing the actual facts, has submitted the petition to the District Collector, Wanaparthy Therefore, the allegations that the petitioner No.1 and other famers encroached the land of the de lacfo complainant, are not correct. lt is further borne out by record that the AE (lrrigations) has addressed a letter to the SHO, alleging that the de facto complainant herein was 4 Ctl.P. N6 4182 61 2026 encroaching upon the existing canal and thus, has requested to take action against them. Now, the de facto complair rnt has come up with the present compraint against the petitior:rs. Thus, it is revealed from the record that there is a lonly pending dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complair I nt. All the above said documents need to be tested before the tri rl court. A bare perusal of the complaint points out the prima facie allegations against the petitioners with regard to the offenc. under sections 447 and 427 rpc and the provisions under sc & s r Act. The truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled ou lnly after a full_ fledged trial. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate I dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the p etitioners before the trial court. . B. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dispos td of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trir court, provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial r n every date of hearing and they shall be present before the trial as and when their presence is required during the course of trial. Mis_cellaneous petitions, pendinq if anv. qh_e.!l ,ta-ndciosed /ITRUE COPY// I.BHAVANI SWAMY .I ;TANT REGISTRAR t \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 The Vll Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar The SHO, PS Amarachintha, Wanaparthy One CC to SRl. M DAMODAR REDDY Advocate [OPL( I One.CC to SRI S. RAMA MOHAN RAO Advocate fOP- ll (r E/PSL Two CD Copies to sRt. PUBLIC PRosEcuroR Advocatei@t i cotr) =wE

6. G .l HIGH COURT DATED:2411112O25 ORDER CRLP.No.4182 of 2025 & T EH t Ro i: n 3 !) i' '1 v \ * 'lil t I I'.:_-/ Tr- lf:O OISPOSING OF THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS ,'-Co{& Y{-^^a 66oo*