High Court · 2025

AND 1. The State of Telangana' through S f-LO fofi"u Station' Adilabad Rural' District Adilabao, tJilil#""iBv ltt i;'nri" iiosecutor' High court at Hyderabad ...RESPoNDENT/RESPoNU-NT

2. Nalaqanti Ralamma, w/o Prasad' ageA aUouiasGars' occ House wife' R/o ' i1 ffi: i- i- i 5 i, k h a ;;; ;; ii'Ei'i, Aa iliu' o'.". Ht r'Jtll'J Afl 'l?3bh. ro' * o * r t PetitionunderSection4S2olCr'P'Cprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be pleased to quash the C C No'55 6 of 2017 ' on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Adilabad' r.A. NO: 10 F 2021 Petition under section 482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C'C No'556 ol 2017 ' on the file of the JudicialFirstClassMagistrateatAdilabadagainstthepetitioners/AccusedNo.l to B herein, pending disposal of main Crl P' in the interest of justice' ^rlentana) l.A. NO: 10F 2025 Between Nalaganti Raiamma. w/o prsss(, aged about 45 years, occ. House wife. R/o H.No.2- 3- 1 5 3. K h a nd p u r street. Adi I a b ad t.il;, Iirrtrtjil,Ilt:jo And ...pETtfloNERy2NoRESPoNDENT '1. Manthena (Mentana) Narsimlu S/o late Sri Rajellu, aged 65 years, occ. BBII?I ,f:y, empt6yee nro-H r.ro )_b"_+iiirs xnrnrpur streei, Adirabao 2. Manthena ilVlentana;^ Br.kgih, S/o. I\/. Narsimlu, aged 29 years, occ Agriculture, R/o H No:2._3_4ihii xn"r ip"rrii"it noirrord Districi (A_2) 3. Manthena Asfro[,-Sto Hrfl'f.f5[i,iil,"rged 42 years. oci. R6coro Ai.1,,",j?i!5r scnbor,- nro Finiz'iiz:bi5, xn"nrp,, street, Adira.bld 'sx"[:l3Jy?illt2i.?i3'i\\xg,iitilffi ,yj?,",":ix3f;,xTB,:i,,f ili_ 4)5 Manthena (lVlentana) *"*h,9,yI9 Ivt Ashok, Aged about 37 years, occ. House wife, R/o H No 2i-4:4t2t3,,Khanapur street, nOrtLiJO District. (A_5) 6 Manthena (rvrentana) iudershari s/; ri;j;iii;:"i;ed about 55 years, occ Junior Assistant Revenue rn.pJ"ioi eair"irli"r,rrl# rcrpalrtv' r/o H No 2-2-455. - Khanapur st;;;i A"olir';"d Districr (4-6r /. Manthena ([Vlentana) Kamala, Wo Sudershan Ar ^ nouse wrrel ni"'ii ri6 ilz q55. Khanapur st,.u"t,'A;ir:dbrio8itl.fl?,Ilii", ".. 8. firlanthena (Mentana) Charan Ral,t/d5rj;fi;;lged about 29.years, occ. Nit, r/o H.No 2_2_455, Khanapu, Si*"r.-ili##'oiitrrct fn_sl e rhe State or rerangana..througl g 1.q .p"1i.::?I3il%]L?!E*rrrrtoruens il*:jAt," o,d rdpresented 6y ii, i,oric-eiJsEii,ii,,, High c";; ;i ",, ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that rn the circumstances in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition,the High Court may be d to vacate the inteirm stay granted on 30t04t2o21 in rA No I of 2021 in o 3813121 and arso dismiss the crr p No 3813 0f 2021 in the interest of stated please Crlp N justice. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of the arguments of te for the Petitioners and the public prosecutor on 1 and of Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, Advocate for the Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing Sri S.Chandrasekhar, Advoca behalf of the Respondent No. Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETTTI ON No.3 813 of 202L ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.SS 6 of 2Ol7 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Adilabad against the petitioners' who have been arrayed as accused Nos.l to B in the interest ofjustice' 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a complaint dated 06.05.2016 has been lodged' by the d'e facto complainant - respondent No.2 herein stating that on 06.05.2016 morning, while she was cultivating her land in Survey No'681217 situated at the out shivar of Khanapur at Tantholi Road, all of a sudden' the accused A1 to A8 ald others armed with sticks ald sickles attacked on her ald damaged her crop and collapsed the hut causing damage and threatened her withdireconsequences.Thus,thedefactocomplainantlodgeda complaint requesting to take necessary action' 3. Based upon the said complaint on O7'05'2016 at 18:30 hours' crime has been register ed' uide FIR No'84 of 2016 under Sections 447 324, 427 and 5O6 read with Section 1O9 of IPC' Accordingly' investigation has been taken up and upon conducting the ' 2 mvestigation and by recording the charge sheet has been iaid. submissions of LWs. 1 to 9, the ir' ,t. 4' challenging the said charge-sheet, this criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5' Heard the learned counser for the petitioners, learned counsel for the un-official respondent and the learned Assistant pubric prosecutor. 6 ' Learned counsel for the petitioners wourd submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present crime, as the dispute essentialll, arises out of civil litigation. The d.e facto complainant earlier instituted o.S.No.2og of 2012 0n the frle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of lald in Survey No.6B/1/1. However, by judgment dated 19'01'2076' the said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior civir Judge assigning cogent reasons. Significaltly, the de facto complainant dicl not prefer any appeal against the said judgment, which has thus attained fina_libv. 7 ' Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that once the civil court has negatived the claim of the d.e facto complainant, she cannot now 6llsgs that she was cultivating the land in Survey No'6g/211a,d thereby initiate farse crimina-, proceedings against the petitioners. Reliance is also placed on the petition filed by the te*facto complainant before the Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking tenancy rights in respect of patta land in Survey No'68/2/l of Ac. 1-1O guntas situated at (old) / 681217 (new), to arr extent Adilabad Maldal. The said petition Divisional officer uide ptoceedrng No'C/ 146 12017, dated 1o'05'2O18' with a further direction to the Tahsildar to send proposals to the AD (S & LR), Adilabad for cancellation of supplementary sethwar issued in tkre de facto comPlainant' was dismissed bY the Revenue It is also submitted trre de facto complainant preferred a revision 8. before the Joint Collector uide R'C'No'F1/ 1328l2Ol8' challenging the said order. However, the revision was dismissed by the learned Joint Collector on 29.06 '2020' Therefore' even assuming without admitting that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences' the very claim of trle de Jacto cotnplainant that she was in possession or cultivating the said land is untenable in view of the concurrent civil and revenue Proceedings' g . Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that continuation of the proceedings in C'C'No'556 of 2Ol7 at the behest of trre de factocomplainant would amount to abuse of process of law and prays that the same may be quashed in the interest of justice' 10. Opposing the sarne ' learned counsel for the un-official respondent would submit that it is an admitted fact that the de facto complainant had lost in the civil proceeding s in O.S.No.2O9 of 2Ol2 on \ I I I ,.i] :t the file of the iearned .i:''ri.:-. :-rvii judge, Adilabad and also ir-. i,re proceedings before the Re.,,.enLre Divisiona_l Officer uide proceedings No.C/H6/2017, dated 10.05.2018, as weli as in the revision case before the Joint collector uid.e Revision case No.F1/ r32g/2org, d ated, 29.06.2020. He would further submit that the d,e facto complainant have once again chalrenged the matter before the civ, court in o'S'No' 1 of 2o2r on the fire of the learned senior civil Judge, Adilabad, which is stiil pending adjudication.

11. In any event, he contends that the question of ownership of the land in Survey No.6r/2/z is a matter of civil dispute. However, the fact remains that the petitioners have trespassed into the property of the de facto compla.tnant, and the police have rightly conducted the investigation ard filed the charge sheet based on the statements of LWs. 1 to 9. It is for the tria-l court to decide, after conducting a full_ fledged trial, whether the offence has been committed by the accused or not' Hence, submits that the interference by this court at this stage is not warra,ted and prays for dismissar of the criminar petition. 12 ' Learned Assista,t public prosecutor submits that unress and until the trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited. He further submits that merely because the dispute also civil aspects, it cannot be presumed that the accused ought not to have committed the 5 alleged offences at this stage of consideration und'er this Criminal Petition, ald hence prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition'

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners' the un- officialrespondentandthelearnedAssistantPublicProsecutor,this Court, without going into the merits of the title of either the petitioners or the un-official respondent, since the same fa1ls within the exclusive domain of the Civil Court, particularly when the matter is said to be pending therein and upon perusal of the complaint filed by the de facto complatnant, finds that the complainant has not disclosed the pendency of the civil proceedings and has thereby suppressed the fact of such disPutes |4.Itisfurtherseenthattherespondentpolicewithoutconsidering the said aspect, have filed the charge sheet before the learned trial court without examining any issue relating to ownership of the land' thereon, but Proceeded onlY on the nor making anY findings The complainant has also been found to allegations in the comPiaint' have suPPressed material facts' 15. In addition, the respondent police' while referring the injured - de facto complainant to the hospitat' failed' to register and obtain the Medical Legal Certifrcate ' No medical report was collected' nor were any of the alleged. instruments referred to in the complaint seized or verified during the investigation ' I I l I , ..,.i..i 6

16. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that,in the absence of collection of entire material evidence, subjecting the petitioners to trial wourd amount to abuse of process of law and wourd result in wastage of precious judicial time of the trial court. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v, Bhajan Lalr, this crimin.l petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.556 of 2OIT on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad against the petitioners - A1 to AB are hereby quashed.

77. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed ald the proceedings in c.c.No.5s6 of 2orr on the lile of the rearned Judicial First class Magistrate, Adilabad against the petitioners _ Al to Ag are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Adilabad 2 The Station Hou se Officer, Adilabad Rural Police Station. Adilabad District 3. One CC to Sri S Chandrasekhar Ad vocate (oPUC) 4. One CC to Sri K Rama Subba Rao, Advoca te (OPUC 5. Two CCs to publ ic Prosecutor, 6. Two C D Cooie Ks/PSL Uv ' 1992 Supplementa,ry (1) SCC 3Ss High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (ouT S ) ) HIGH COURT DATED:06 t0Bt2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.3B13 ot 2021 /, .21 AUB M25 + Oc ir- P,",iC' rr:1'' .\. :il t l I I I : , ! ! Allowing the Crl.p. 2b