Vasireddy Lakshmi sivanarayana v. Hyderabad (Through SHO, p.S., Banjara Hitts, Hyderabad)

Order

This Criminal Petition has been filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.237 of 2026 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(41, 115(2), 351(2), 189(21 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short'the BNSJ.

2. Brief facts of the case: On 22.03.2026 at 10.00 hours respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that, he is the General manager & authorized representative of Rithwik Projects Private Limited, and taking care of the propert5r since 2OOL, on behalf of Rithwik projects Private Limited and other land owners such as Mr. C.M Ramesh, Mr. C.M Rajesh, Smt. C.R Sridevi, Smt. C.R Prakruthi. On 22.03.2A26 at \ 2 5:OO l\.M some unknown mob reached the site and are trying to enter into the subject mentioned premises by threatening their security person and man handled him at H.No.8-2- 269./1 & 8-2- 26912, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonging to Mr. C.M Rame:rh, Mr. C.M Rajesh, Smt.C.R Sridevi, Smt. C.R Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik projects Private Limited, and causing nuisance. He receiv,:d the said information at 6:3O A.M. by way of a phone call from their Securit5r and Mr. K.N.V.Phanindra mentioning the above incident and then he immediately rushed to the site location and on enquiry found that Mr. Vasireddy Lakshmi Sivanarayana and Vasire,ddy Nagakumar engaged Mr.Mayur along with namely 1) Tanan.ki Taraka ram S/o Narendra Nath, 2). S.K Shanker formed a conspiracy with an illegal intention to encroach into the above said p,remirses for the purpose of wrongful claim that the land belongs to them. He immediatety informed Banjara hills police station and the concet:ned team from police station approached the site location and took siituation into control. The above said persons have no right and valid title in the above said property but still only with an intention to grab the propert5r, they made an attempt along with a mob and prepared everything such as concrete mixture, crane, container and iron weapons. Therefore, he prayed to take necessarJr action against the said persons. \ 3

3. Heard Mr. vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel, representing M/s. Joshi and chillara r,egal Associates LLp appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel, representing Mr. P.vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Jithendei Rao veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-state.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1 Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated in this crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4],, 115(2), 351(2), 189(21 r/w 3(5) of the BNS are not attracted and the allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature, especially the petitioners have filed suit in o.s.No.97 of 2026 before the XIV Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property, wherein t]:e trial Court in I.A.No.413 of 2026 granted ad interim injunction on

05.03.2026 restraining the respondents/defendants therein from interfering with the petition schedule propert5r and the said order is continuing. The de-facto complainant filed the complaint on

22.03.2026, without having any manner of right, interest over the subject propert5r, on behalf of M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited. \ \ ?- ! 4 He further submitted that the petitioners have purchased the properly through registered document dated 10.05.2006 from its rightfut owner by paying valuable sale consideration and since then they h,ave been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and therefore, the question of encroachment upon the propert5r as alleged in the complaint does not arise.

4.2 I{e further submitted that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and the petitioners filed VI.P.No.2 L572 of 2015 questioning the action of respondent No.2/District Collector, Nampally, Hyderabad, proposing to conduct survey for localization in respect of the very same property and the said u'rit petition is pending, wherein the petitioners have filed W.P.M.P.No.322O2 of 2015 for seeking permission to implead the proposted respondent Nos.4 to 47 as party respondents and the said application was allowed on 1O.O3.2026.

4.3 :{e further submitted that the Government liled LGC No.167 of 1999 before the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, claiming the subject propert5r alleged in the complaint and the said LGC was dismissed on O2.03.2OO5. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed W.P.Nrr. L5174 of 2O05 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesih and the same was dismissed on 26.11.2010 holding that f 5 the subject land in LGC is not a Government land and the said judgment was confirmed by the Honble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.27316 of 2OlI on 23.O9.201I and the said order has become final. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour to settle the civil disputes fending before the competent Civil Court. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.4 He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment below seven years. The Investigating Officer without following the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS/41-A of Cr.P.C. and the gUidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Araesh Kumar vs. State of Biharl, proceeding further with the investigation and the same is contrary to law.

5. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearlng for respondent No.2:

5.1 Per ontra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2, being a General Manager and authoriz.ed representative of M/s Ruthwik Projects Private Limited, filed complaint against the petitioners on

22.03.2026. In the said complaint, it is specifically mentioned that '(zor+) 8 scc 273 I i -t t 6 house bearing Nos.8-2-26911 and 8-2-26912, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belong to Mr.C.M.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rqiesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects Private: Limited/respondent No.2 and that on 22.03.2026, in the early hLours the petitioners along with others with a conspiracy and withou t having any manner of right and title over the property are trying to enter into the above said property and threatened their securily persons and manhandled them and caused nuisance with an intention to encroach the subject propert5r. The above said allegations are specifically attracts the ingredients of offences levellerl against the petitioners.

5.2 lle further submitted that the petitioners are claiming rights over ttre property basing upon the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Pbwer of Attorney and the said document does not confer any title over ttre subject propert5r. The petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.97 of 2026 without impleading Mr.C.M.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rajesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects t Private Limited, as party defendants and obtained ad interim injunc':ion order behind their back and basing on the said ex-parte ad intt:rim injunction order, they are trying to encroach upon the subjecl propert5r. . Similarly, the petitioners without impleading Mr.C.l\I.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rajesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt. l 7 C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, owners of the propert5r, as party respondents filed the writ petition.

5.3 He also submitted that the petitioners claiming rights from their vendors from M/s. Anand Prabath Co-op, Housing Society Limited and. the said Society had purchased 21 plots out of 49 plots in the layout and the petitioners have purchased plot bearing No.29 and 30 from the said Society. In LGC No.167 of 1999, the said Society claimed Ac.2O-00, whereas on the ground an extent of Ac.7- 29 guntas equivalent to 31248 square meters of the land is only available. The property claimed by the petitioners is no more in existence and based on the judgment in LGC, Writ Petition and SLP(C), the petitioners are not entitled to claim any property, especially they are not the parties in the said proceedings. Basing on the pendency of the civil suits and the writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings and the same is nothing to do with the present criminal petition, especially there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the real truth will come out during the course of investigation. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek ior quashing of the FIR at the threshold.

5.4 He further submitted respondent No.2 is not having any objection if the tnvestigating Officer follows the procedure as ( \" t i : 8 contenlplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS/41-A of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh (supral.

6. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

6.1 karned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specifi,: allegations levelled against the petitioners. The said allegations attract cognizable offences and require investigation. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. Analysis:

7. l{aving considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record. it reveals that respondent No.2, who is General Manager and authorized representative of M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, filed c<rmplaint on 22.03.2026, wherein it is specifically stated that Mr.C.lU.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rajesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, are ownersi of the subject propert5r. On 22.03.2026 at 5.OO A.M. the petitiorrers along with others without having any manner of right are trying to enter upon the subject property and caused nuisance. The petitioners along with one Mr.Ma5mr, Mr.Tananki Tarakaram, Mr.S.K.shanker, formed a conspiracy illegally to encroach upon the i 1 I I I I i t I l i g i I I i I ! .1 i.'. 9 subject property for the purpose of claiming the land, as it belong to them. Whereas the petitioners are claimilg rights over the subject property through Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2006.

8. The record reveals that the petitioners have filed suit in O.S. No.97 of 2026 for grant of perpetual injunction against M/s. Anand Prabath Cooperative Housing Society Limited and R.R.Pasura Constructions LLP, restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, the petitioners have filed I.A. No.413 of 2026 for grant of ad interim injunction and the trial court had granted ad interim injunction on 05.03.2026 restraining the respondents/defendants therein from interfering with the petition schedule property. In the said suit, neither tlrre de- facto. complainant nor Mr.C.M.Rajesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited were made as part5r defendants.

9. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that the petitioners under the guise of ad interim injunction are trying to occupy the subject property without having any manner of right, especially the property claimed by the petitioners is not in existence and the identification of property of the petitioners is also in dispute, are concerned. this court is not inclined to deal with the said. issues in I 1 t / , : n t i I 10 the prresent criminal petition, especially the petitioners have filed suit in O.S NO. 97 of 2026 and the same is pending.

10. The scope of the present criminal petition is very limited. whether the petitioners are tried to enter upon the subject propert5r, as rrrentioned in the complaint illegally with an intention to encroach the same or not and thereafter the security persons manhandled and caused nuisance and the said allegations are true or not, has to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is at the threshold. The allegations levelle:d in the complaint discloses prima facie commission of cognizzable offences and the grounds raised by the petitioners are dispuled questions of fact, which cannot be examined and adjudicated in a proceedings under Section 52g of the BNSS. 11- In A.M. Mohan v. state represented by sHo and another2, wherein the Honble Supreme court relying upon the various judgments including the principle laid down in G. sagar suri and another v. State of U.p. and others3, held that criminal procee'dings cannot be permitted to continue where the dispute is predorninantly civil in nature and the criminal law is invoked only to exert l)ressure or settle civil scores. The court observed that mere breactL of contractual obligations or disputes arising out of 2 IZOZ+112 Supreme Court Cases 181 r (2000) 2 scc 636 '\_ I 11 commercial or property transactions do not' by themselves' constitute criminal offences unless the essential ingredients of the allegedpenalprovisionsareclearlymadeout.Itwasfurtherheld that giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute amounts to abuse of the process of law, and in such cases' the High Court is justified in exercising its inhirent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.toquashtheproceedingsinordertosecuretheendsof justice and prevent misuse of the criminal justice system' |2.Thejudgmentrelieduponbythelearnedcounselforthe petitionersinA.M.Mohan(supra)isnotapplicabletothefactsand circumstances of the present case, as the allegations are not confined to a civil dispute. In the complaint, it is specifically alleges criminal trespass, illegal intention to encroach into the subject property mentioned in the complaint for the purpose of claiming the subjectpropertyasbelongstothem.Thesaidallegations,iftaken at face value, prima facie disclose cognizable offences'

13.InMohammadM.Khalid,Hyderabadandtwoothersv. FubticProsecutor,Hyderabadandanother(Crl.P.No.637aof 2015'dated1s.11.2025|,thisCourtatparagraphNo.l0,heldas follows: \ \ I r t2 "It is relevant to mention that in K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.a, the Honble Apex Court has realfirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevl Aganual v. State of W.B.s and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. RaJesh Agarwale, to reiterate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal proceedings, espeiially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or linancial transactions, and such a "civil profile" does not strip the act of its "criminal outfit." Similarly in S.[. ViJa5ralakshmi v. State of Karnatakaz, the Honble Apex Court has reiterated the same principle, stating that civil and criminal proceedings may, in law, proceed simultaneously, a criminal prosecution can be sustained only where there is a clear presence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction."

14. The principle laid down in Mohammad M. Khalid supra squan:ly applies to the facts of the present case. The complaint contains specific allegations of criminal trespass, and is not confined to a mere civil dispute between the parties. The altegations disclo:ie prima facie commission of cognizable offences, and the !l 4 5 6 7 1rrro.,\o scc ss, (2002',t 1 SCC sss ' (19991r B SCC 686 2025 $CC Online SC 1575 -. 13 issues raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact, the proceedings in a criminal case cannot be quashed at the crime stage while exercising the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS

15. It is relevant to mention that in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra8, the power to quash an F.I.R. is to be exercised sparingly and only in rare'and exceptional cases, since F.l.R. is not an encyclopedia.

16. In so far as the other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishabte with imprisonment below seven years and the Investigating Oflicer without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of ,th"re' is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law, is concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 fairly submitted that he has no objection to issue necessary direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supral- 8 lzozry 19 scc 4ol e(2ol4l8 SCC 273 I \ \ L4 L7 ' F.r the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this cotrrt is of the considered view that the present case does not fall undr:r rarest of rare cases to quash the proceedings against the petitione'rs at this stage. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the offences levelled ,egainst the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, the Investigating officer is directed to foilow the due procedure prescribed under the provisions of the BNSS, and the guidelines issued by the Apex court in Arnesh Kumar (supral. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievances before the Investigating officer after receiving the notice under section 3s(3) of BNSS by raising a[ the pleas which are available to them and they are also entitled to produce the document:s which are in their possession.

18. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. Mis':ellaneous apprications, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Clrief Judicial Magistrate At Hyderabad. s]{ion House officer, Banjara Hilts police station, Hyderabad. ? ]hoe 3' T& C:Cs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad tor-|rl 4' One CC to M/s.Joshi and Chillara LegalAssociates LLp, Advocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to Sri p.Vamshi Krishna, Adiocate tOpUCI 6. Two CrD Copies GNK 'PSL src, l. i I I I I i .l f I _---_ __ .,.) 1 I t CCfrda^S HIGH COURT DATED: 07104t2026 T I .S* s Y3 tJ- ") , + . ,ig,i'

1.4:.: (4 CRLP.No.44Gg of 2026 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION y6+t> %;