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 records and set aside the impugned Alteration Memo dt. 1011012023 and consequently Quash the proceedings in Crime No. 591/2023 on the file of Kamareddy Town Police Station for alleged offences under Sec. 326, 5O7 rlw 34 IPC against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2. t I LA. 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 be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in impugned Alteration Memo dt. 10.1O .2023 and consequently in proceedings in Crime No. 591/2023 on the file of Kamareddy Town Police Station for alleged offences under Sec. 326, 507 r/w 34 IPC including investigation, personal appearance and arrest of Al and A2, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Karunakar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following Order:- ET I 1 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4218 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos. I and 2 in Crime No.59l of 2023 of Kamareddy Town Police Station, Kamareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 5O6 read with 34 ol thc Indian Pcnal Code, 1860 (for short 1PC).

2. The brigf facts of the case are that, respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police. On 0q. iO.2023, at Siricilla Road, Kamareddy, the complainant, Kairamkonda Satlranarayana, Manager of Thakur Sadhekar Company Pvt. Ltd., reported that he had been working in the Beedi company for about 30 years and that the company's owner, Thakur Dayaland of Pune, owned Ac.0.43 guntas of land in Sy.No.43/ 1/ 2, purchased in the year 2OO4 from Suthari Poshawa and Suthari Laxmi. He stated that on 29.07.2O2O, one Gireddy Shivareddy created fake documents in respect of the said land for unlawful possession, for which FIR No.278 of 2O2O 2 t SKS'J Crl.P.No.4218 of 2025 was registered and was still pending. On tl-re date of the incident, while construction work was in progress on the land, Mohammt:d [mran Khan of Secunderabad, along rvith about ]0 others, allegedly came to the site, took au'ay tools lrom the labourers, abused them in lilthy language, and threatened to kill the complainant and the workers vvith a gadCapara (crowbar). The complainant informed the police, u,ho arrived and temporarily pacified the situation, but after the police left, the accuscd again repeated the threats and ass:rults, causing injuries to Mohammed Nadhim, Mohammed Adnad, Sk. Shoib, and Md. Sopyan. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.591 of 2023 of Kamareddy Town Police Station, Kamareddy District, for the offeni:es punishable under Sections 324 and 5O6 read with 34 of ll)C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners liled the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

3. Heard Sri K. Karunakar, learned counsel irppearing on behalf of tlle petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l - State and Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. E:------7 I 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.42la of2()25 4 - Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' brother, Mohammed Azhar Khan, was the owner and possessor of the property in qucstion and was protected by a subsisting injunction order granted in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S. No.7 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy. Despite this, the de facto complainant, without any title, possession, or right, attempted to encroach upon the said property on 03.1O.2O23 and again on Oa.1O.2023, in collusion with the eastern ncighbour. He further submitted in both incidents, the brother of the petitioners acted only to protect his life and property when respondent No.2 and his associates attacked with rods and sticks after throwing chilli powder, causing injuries. Counsel argued that the right to defend one's life and property is recognised in lau' and that the petitioners had also lodged several complaints with the police against these miscreants, but no action was taken.

5. karned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned Alteration Memo dated 1O.1O.2O23, changing the charges from Sections 324,506 r/w 34 [PC to Sections 326,506 r/w 34 IPC, was an afterthought intended to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case to grab the property. The petitioners I SKS'J ()rl.P-l{o-4218 of 2025 disputed the medical report relied on by the prosecution and referred to video evidence showing that the injured person, Md. Nadeem, \r'as one of the attackers. Ht: pointed out inconsistencies in the complaint date, noting that it appeared to have been antedated by a month and thal the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent and that respondent No.2, being a henchman of a defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2023, had no possession over the propert-v. Reference was made to prior FIRs, including FIR No.568/2023 and FIR No.592/2023, involving similar attacks by respondent No.2 and his associates, one of which resulted in grievous rnjuries to an advocate. He further contended that respondent No.2 had colluded lyith one Syed Imran, a person with influence over local police and a history of violent acts as reflected in FIR No.6a3/2022.

6. In support of his submissions, he rcli<:d upon the judgments in t.he cases of Sulochana Devi Agarwala v. District Magistrate, Upsuryaveer Singh @ Tillan v. State of U.P., Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttaralrhandr , and Usha Chakraborty v. State of lllest Bengal2, to contend that wl]en '(zora) tr scc oz: 'stp (crt.) No.5tt66 of 2022 7 --a- 5 sxs,J Crl.P.No.42lt of2025 disputes are essentially civil in nature and are given the colour of criminal offences to harass the accused, the Court musl invoke its inherent powers to quash such proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Therefore, hc prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the pctitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature. There are several cases pending against each other. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against them does not arise. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 hled countcr affidavit denying the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the claim of the petitioners rested on an injunction order granted in I.A.No.344 of 2023 irr O.S.No.7 of 2023 by the learned Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, which was only an ex parte ad-interim order passed on O8.06.2O23. He further submitted that the petitioners wrongly relied on the withdrawal of O.S.No.61 of 2O2O, whereas SKS'J Crl.P.No.42l8 of2O25 respondent No.2 was never a pa-rty to that suit. He further submitted tllat the petitioner claimed possession over land in Sy.No.4 1/ I admeasuring Ac.O-27 gts at Sircilla Road, Kamareddy, u'hich was also the subject matt€r of O.S.No.7 of

2023. ln that suit, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.707 of 2024 seeking amendment to claim recovery of possession, but the said petition u,as dismissed by order dated 28.03.2025, granting Iiberty to fih a fresh suit. This dismissal order, according to counsel, \ 'as suppressed in the present case. He contended that respondent No.2 was not a party to O.S.No.707 of 2O24 or O.S-No.61 of 2O2O, and therefore, those proceedings could not be reiied upon against him. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss tht' criminal petition.

9. In light o[ the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the allegations against the petitioners are for offences under Sections 324 and 5O6 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case record includes an injury certificate issued by the competent medical authorities indicating that the injuries sustained :rre grievous in nature. The complaint, supported by the medical evidence, discloses prima facie the commission of 7 SKS.J Crl.P.No.4218 of2O25 cognizable offences and raises serious allegations against the petitioners which require thorough investigation and adjudication during trial.

10. The issues raised by the petitioners regarding title, possession, and alleged civil disputes cannot, at this stage, bc grounds to stifle a legitimate prosecution when the material on record discloses the existence of triable issues. The defences and rival claims can be established oniy upon appreciation of evidence during trial, and it would be premature for this Court to enter into disputed questions of fact in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court does not f-rnd any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against thepetitionrs and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kamareddy. 2. The Station House Officer, Kamareddy Town P.S., Kamareddy District

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, lligh Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri K. Karunakar. Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \ V( 'ghI I I a' \ I :, HIGH COURT DATED:12108/2425 ORDER CRLP.No.4218 of 2025 'rA ir (- J 3 lr 0[I 2P5 SPATCH t-rO DISMISSING THE CRLP g /5o