The High Court · 2025

throuqh Kowdipally, Police Station, Kowdipally. fvledak District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, fS, HyOerhUaa RespondenURespondent 2 Dharavath Lakshmi Banjara, Wo. Dharavath Lachiram Naik, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculature and Chiar Person of M/s. lndia Poultry Pvt. Ltd., R/o. H,No. 16-02-51 lF l5l 1, Akberbagh, rVlalakpet, Hyderabad. ...*"'r3:*"j]fl:l1f Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused Nos. 1to 4 in Crime No. 33 of 2021, on the file of PS Kowdipally Medak District IA NO l0F 2021 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying tha n the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petitic . the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings includin : :aking coercive steps against the Petitioner/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crrme No .:. of 2021 , Kowdipally PS, tr,4edak District IA NO 20F2021 Between The State of Telangan;r, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, TS, Hyderabad And ResJ :r r d e nt/Res po n d e nt 1 2 3 4 5 Battula Ralini, \A//o Sai Reddy, Aged about 52 y,ears, Occ. H6use Hold. Battula. Sai Reddy, S/o. Sri yeila Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ. Service, Both are R/o. H No 8-2-52N121 , Virat Nagar, Karmanghat, Hyderabad 500 079. Chennapati Uma fi/aheswari, Wo. Sri. K. Sudheer Kur ar Aged about 48 years. Occ. Service, R/o. H no. 3-6-1i3211 and 2, Street No. i7, Urdu Hall Lane, Himyathnagar, Hyderabad 500C29 Ivlannamgi Sreedhar Rao, S/o. Sri Bhadraiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 5-5-160/53, Ptot No 83, Sai Prakaram apartments, Hill Colony, Vanasthalipurarrr, Hyderabad 500059. ...R {ipondents/A_ccused Dharavath Lakslrmi Banjara, W/o. Dharavat Aged about 55 y,3ars. Occ. Agriculature and Chiar Person of lVl/s. lndia Poultry pvt. Ltd., R/o. H.No. 1 6-02 -51 tF tst 1, Akbeibagh, Malakpet. Hycler;abad. (R-5 is not necessary party) h Lachiram rla rk ...Respr r-r JenVComplainant j / Petition under section 482 oI Cr.P .C praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the tVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay in crlP No.3760/2019 on the file of High court dated 301412021 . This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Lokirev Preetham Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VEIiI-IGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.376O OF 2t'2tl ORDER: TI'us pctitior is prelerrecl ltv thc petitioner-s :r! ( u:iccl Nos.1 to 4 secking to clrrash the procccdings in crime N, . ]3 oi 20'21 on the file of thc Police Stat ion l(ou,dipalt1 , \ ,. rlali District, registerccl 1-rrr tlrc olli-'nces undcr Scctions141, I 'OU. .+ t5, +68, 17 1,1.2O, 1'2?', l--s, +27,50-+, 506 read with 3 o[ Lhc. lndian Pcnal Cocle

2. l}'r e- pclitlorLers l-rerein .lre accused No .l .o .l and respondent No.-l irereir-r is tlte cle facto cornplair :rnt bcfore the trial Courl. Iio,- t he sarkc of <:onvcnience hereirr: r' Jr.rltics are referrecl to as ir('crrsed Nos.l to 4 and the complair LtrL

3. The br-iei lzrcts of the case arc that the corrrlrrirrant is the Chairmarn :rnrl VlrLnzrging Director of M/s. India ,tr-rl-r--r, Priverte Limited. The cornpktinarrt's compan_v is the abso Lrtc ,.rq,ner and possessor ol land 1o an extent of Acs.206 in Sy.No ':)',1., ()3 ancl 94, situated at Nargszrnpallv village, Mandal I(ou-r ioall.r,, Medak District. Thc szrnr,. ri.as purchased lrom M/s. Basi, lln,cclers prrt. Ltd,-ir.6o pllrcha.led the samc from the original rr:r:upants and I I 2 owners namely tr.Ma11aiah, E.Shiwaiah., tr.Ramaiah and others. The ou,nership of the lartds was translerred in the name of M/s. Basik Breeders Pvt. Ltd and subsequentlv the same \\':1s transferred in the namc of the contplainant's compart-\' at-rd Pattadar passbook and title deeds u'ere issued. M/s. tndia Poultry Pvt. Ltd thereafter sold Acs.36.00 in Sy.No.92 to Mr. C.Venkat Ashu,in and further an extent of Acs.32.00 in Sy.No-92 ir-r favour of accused No.I u'ith an undertaking that if anybody intends to alienate the property they must take consent of other tu,o person. belor-e allenation. Contrarv to the alleged understanding, accused No.1 sold land admeasuring Acs.22.00 to accused No.3 under registered sale deed bearing document No.473l of 20 10, datcd 27 .12.2OlO and furthcr rcmaining cxtetld to accused No..l under registered sale deed bezrring document No.4732 of 2010, dated 27.lO.2OlO and accuscd No.5 is the r,l.atchmen and supervisor. A11 the accused conspired togcther r,vith a malfide intention and created the registered sale deeds urith incorrect boundaries to grab the land of the complait-rant. On 27.12.2020, the accused persons tried to trespass into the land of the complainant and abused her in filthy language and {i i:.t ;i:i!=!i}r' 3 damaged the burtrls at-icl trees to a tunc of Rs.20 i-00,i.. Hencc, the complainant lod6led ar complaint

4. Beising on ilrc saicl complaint, Sub Inspectc ol t(o'"r,dipallr. Police Station re sistcred a case in Crimc No.33 ,l 202 l, under Sections 141 , 1201f , 415, 468, 47 t, q2O, 423, 425 +27, SO4, 506 read $,ith 34 of I.P.C

5. Heard N'lr. [, Preetl-ram Redd,r,, learned couns :rppearing for the petitioncrs,'it:cused Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. Szri [)hal<ravarthy, learned counsr:1 appeartng for responcient I c.2 ancl Mr E.Ganes}r, leerrnerl Assistant Pr-rb1ic Proseclltor aL ,lartng for the respondent- State :Lncl perused thc record

6. Mr. L.Preetl'rrlm Redd,t,, learned counsel ap, aring for the petitioners u,oulcl contend that there are civil dir,Lrr-rtes betu.een respondent No.'2 and the petitioners. The pc i,,ioners being bonafide purchascrs ut-rclcr registered salc de r_ s are being pressurized to giv,: back their lands to responcl -Lt No.2 for a nominal rate. 'I'he same u,as refused by the pet t]oners hence, respondent No.2 using the criminal proceedingr as a tool to harass the petitioners. Earlier respondent 1,o.2 lodged a complaint againsl Lhe petitioners on 16.O7.2OI7 a Jr:ging that on ,4 '... ' ..:i,a:.: ..

13.O7 .2O17 , the petitior.rers have illegally trespassed into the subject property arld committed theft by cutting 75 Voil tress. The police i(oir,dipallr. r'cgistercd a case in Crime No.7 2 of 2017 , dated 16.O7.20 18 ur-rdcr Sectior-r 173 of Cr.P.C ar-rd filcd a linal rcport. The rcport declarcd that it is a false complaint lodgecl b1' r-cspondcnt No.2 and closed as "Lack of Evidence" on 10.O6.20 18 Respondcr-rt No.2 also sr-rppressed the lact that she hacl filed O.S.No.17 of 2O1B sccl<ing for injunction ar-rd O.S.No.3 <'tf 2021 seeking damages of Rs.1 crore

7. Lcarned counsel l'r-rrther contendeci that the petitioners \\'erc not evcll prcscnt in the StaLc of Telangana on the derte ol the aileged offcrrce, as the-t' \\,cre attellding marriage of their familv in the r-reighbouring state of Andhra Pradesh. T[-re petitionc'rs h:n'e not committed the alle ged offence and they are falself implicated u,ithout tl'rere being an-t' involvement in the alleged ollcrrcc. The Judicial Magistrate of II Class at Narsapur has acted as a post office ir-r taking the cognizance ol the complaint and referred it to the police, without application of mind and without recording the satisfaction about thc constitution of tl-re oflences as rcquired under Scction 2O2 Cr.P.C. The Sections imposed against the petitioncrs do not disclose al.ry olfence :, -7 B. To supporl his case, le irrnecl coultsel also . Jicrl upon the follo',r'ing jucigmcnts, ri.hich r-cacls as undcr

8. L Uma Shankar Gopalika as. State :'f Bihar and Anothert woull lrelci lhart tlte complaint does t-; drsclose any offencc r-rnder Secl.ions 141 Unlau'ful Asscmbh . .r Cheating, 468 Forgen for thc pLrrposc of cl-re ating, 471 uslrr g a forged document as 1y'r rr-rine rvhiclt is l<norr.rr to bc ;r-g,'cl, 420 Cheating and inclucing dclivcrr of propcr-tr +.) I lraudulent execution of clecrl of Lransfc-r- t:ontaining a farlse st r (.nt(jnt, 42.5 Mischiel', 427 N4ischiel zrncl thereb-v car-ising r nzrge, 504 Insult ir-rtended t o provol<e brcach of pe ace, 34 trcl s done bv severerl persons irr furthcrancc of Common lntcr irrn: of Indian Penal Code anrl thercforc, allos-ing tl're irtves r.J;rticrrt r,vould amount to abusr: of process of lau'

8.2. State of W.B. and. another us. T l(.Ghosh and others2 8.3. State oJ Karnataka us. Mui iswamg and. others3

8.4. COX and Kings (agents) Ltd us. Tlteir Workmen and othersa \ --. rluoosy '(zoos) t (t qgt) IO SCC 336 r0 scc 339 I SC]C 699 6

8.5. Joseph Slavaraj as. Strr.te oJ Gujarat and otherss, The relevant portion reads as under " 19. 'l'|rc ap1rcllatt.l. a.rnnot be allowed to gr.t tltough thr: rigtnaroLe of u crirtitctl prosecution for lortg nutnbers of tlears, eue:rt tulrcrt ctdrntttedlq a ciuil surt ftas ctlreadg beert filed agahlst tlLe ctppelLctrt.l arrcl resportdent No.1-contplainant, artd is sflll .srzb ludice. Itr. tlt<'scrld srtit. llte appellart is at libefty to cotltest the sotne otL grourtds auailable to hin it accordance tuiLh lctw as per the leaue grrtrterl by the tnctl Court. it nay also be peftinent to rrte-rttiott lrcre tltat tlrc corr4tla tcttt hc"s tLot beert able to show thctt et anll nlatenal poitrt of tirrte t.here tuas any contract, rnuch less ang piuity of contract betu.teert tlte appellar ctnd respondert No.4 cotrtplctirtctt. 'l-lrere Lt)es tlo cause of action to euett Lodge cuL FIR agcLitrst t.he appellant as neitlrcr the cornplahuutt hacl to receiue tlte, tnonelJ tK)r u.,cts lte in any utay itstrurnerial to te.lecost "GOD TV" t cert<tirt areas of Ahtrtedabad. I Ie ctpytectrs t.o be totcrllg a slretlger to tlte srune,. The appelLant's prosecLtliott tuoulcl ortlLl learl to lris i rrrr-trss ttet and humiLiatiort, whiclt cannot be pemtittecl in accordatrce tuitlt the pinciples of laut.

9. Sri Sai Chakravarth.v, learned counsel appearing lor respondent No.2 u,oulcl subnrit that the petitioners conspired together urith a malfidc intentron and created the registered serle deeds u,ith incorrect boutrdaries to grab the land of rcspondcnt No.2. The1, also tried to trespass into the land of respondcnt No.2 and abused I'rcr in filth-r. language and damaged the trces. He further submitted tl-rat the crime is at investigation stage and ' 1 tozzl 2 scc zo5 '(zorr)zscc:q "ryf,' i indulgence of tlris CoLlrt at this stage is uns'a )'.rntL'd. Hence seeks to dismiss r he preser-rt criminal petition 1O. Mr. E.(lirr-esh, lt:arnecl Assist:rnt Pr-rl I c Prosectrtor appearing for tl-tc rcspondent - St.rte u ould subr it thilt crime is at thc investigirl i,ln stage and interference of tlt :; Cout'1" at this stagr: is unu,trrr-iLr rted. Due to sta-\ in operatron, re inr,e stigati o r-r could not calrv on . Unless and r-rntil fuii 1, :dgcd trial is conductcd by t:xrrmir.rir-rg the evidcncc and facls .rtrfcre it, truth u,ill not be elicitcc'[. Hencc seeks to clismiss this c' rr:ir-ra1 petition 1 1. Havir-rg he ard tl're learncd counsel for th l)artics, uporl perusing the material available on record and ju rrirnt,nts passed b1. the Hon'ble' Apex Court, this Cor-rrt is of t l o.rinion that respondcnt No.2 suppressecl the fact that r-Lcl-(' are civil I proceedings pt'n cting against the petitioncr ;nd filed the present criminirl case and as felr as trespass is < .cerned, thcre is no material evrdence on record to prove the s, t.tc. In vieu' of the above, this Court, in an1'manner, is not cot .tr-rced to allow, the investigation, as both tl-re parties are engage I thcrnselves in the civil proceedirrgs in the trial Court. Hence, tl i; Court decms 8 it appropriate to quash the proceedings AS against the petrtioners

12. Accordingll,, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in crime No.33 of 2O2l on the file of the police Station Kowdipall_v, Medak District, against the petitioners a_re hereby quashed

13. Needless to mention that it is open lor respondent No.2 to lr,ork-out the remedie s as available under 1ar,v before an appropriate forum. As a sequel thereto, Miscelianeous Pctitions, if aly, pendir-rg shall stand clcsed SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD D PUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SE TION OFFICER To,

1. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Kowdipally, Medak Diskict 2. One CC to Sri Lokirev Preetham Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED: 141071202!; ORDER CRLP.No 3760 of 2.021 a:- -. ''. tt'.) ; ,,..-. ,,;, l-, ar+ 15 ot' m .\i:. ,':- .'\

2.. : ,1,.'' ,li , ,:: a-,;/' CRII\4INAL PETITION IS ALLOWED +.ogo'Y Fr- 15 \o