The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Krishna Murthy Soma, S/o.S V N Rao Soma, aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-320/E303, Keerthi Apartments, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, TS - 500073. ...Respondent 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 call for records relating to Crime.No.27 of 2021 dated.02-03-2021 on the file of P.S.Bhanoor, Sangareddy District, Telangana State, quash the proceedings therein. t.A. NO: oF 2021 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 stay all further proceedings in Crime.No.27 of 2021 dated.02-03- 2021 on the file of P.S.Bhanoor, Sangareddy District, Telangana State. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ch. Jayakrishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SR.EENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3838 oF 2021 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.27 of 2021 dated 02.03.2021 on the file of P.S.Bhanoor, Sangareddy District, Telangana State for the offence punishable under Sections 447 , 427,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('lPC' for brevity).

2. I{eard Sri Ch.Jayakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public prosecutor for respondent-State and Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. 'l'he case of prosecution is that on 02.03.2021 at 19.00 p.M, rhe de-facto complainant/respondent lodged a complaint stating that a group of individuals trespassed into the property of the respondent, forced the respondent's staff to stop work, threatened them and erected a name board on the property of the respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Fven according to the complaint there are no allegations 2 JSR, U Crlp_3838-2O2 I against him to atftact ingredients for the offences under Sections 447, - 427, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.93 of 2020 on behalf of other accused as counsel on the file of District Judge, Sanga Reddy seeking partition and separate possession. -In the said suit, respondent No.2/de- facto complainant was made as party defendant. After receiving summons, respondent No.2lde-facto complainant filed the present complaint implicating the petitioner as accused merely because the petitioner is the counsel for the other accused in Civil Court. He further submitted that the other accused lodged the complaint against Station House Officer, BDL Bhanoor Police Station, Sanga Reddy District on 05.03.2021, to the Superintendent of Police, Sanga Reddy wherein they specifically stated that they erected the notice board in the subject property but not the petitioner/accused No. l. Respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner in the case by making omnibus allegations. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the petitioner is also present at the scene of offence along with other accused and there are spe.;rtc allegations 3 JSR, U Crlp_3838_202 I leveled against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not, the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quash of the FIR. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner filed suit in o.S.No.93 of 2020 as counsel on behalf of Smt.P.Jagadamba, and seven others against Smt.Sara Sharadha and 18 others seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule property in the said suit. In the said suit, M/s. Ram Societate LLp, represented by its partner namely Sri Krishnamurthy Soma was made as a party defendant. Accordingly, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the suit and petitioner/accused No.l herein is one and same. Defendant No.9 in the suit and respondentNo.2lde-facto complainant herein is one and same. 'the only allegation against the petitioner that he along with other accused went to the spot and threatened staff of respondent No.2 when the work is going on. The above said complaint was lodged subsequently to the institution of the suit. The record further reveals that the other accused in the present crime lodged a complaint\ tefore Superintendent of police, Sanga Reddy on 4 JSR, J Crlp_3838_2O2 I

05.03.2021 against the Station House officer, BDL Banur, specifically stating that the petitioner/accused No.l is nothing to do with the subject property and the sign board is erected by the other accused. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is appearing as counsel on behalf of other accused in O.S.No.93 of 2021and another suit in O.S.No.237 of 2019 and merely because the petitioner is appearing as counsel on behalf of other accused, respondent No.2 has implicated him as accused in the present crime, especially when there are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioner

7. [t is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in Stqte of Haryana v. Bhajan LalI , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends ofjustice. ' lggZ Supp ( l ) SCC 335 .\ \, 5 JSR, J Crlp_3838-202 I 8' Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, this court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings in crime No.27 of 2021 against the petitioner/accused No. r is crear abuse of process of Iaw and the same is liabre to be quashed. Accordingry, quashed. However, it is made crear that the observations made herein above were onry confined to the disposar of this criminar petition onry. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. Misce'aneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminar petition shall stancl closed. I 1 : To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A sEcTtoN OFFTCER 1' The Additionar Judiciar First crass Magistrate at sangareddy. 2' The statiorr House officer, ghanoor.l6ric^e strti*, sangareddy. 3 4. One CC to Sri.Ch. Jayakrishna, Advocate [OpUCl s. one CC to sri Kowturu pr*rn-ir;";, ;;,;;;J,."iorr.r \v,vucr.E t o. Two cD copies lyr"":fi|" ,t3"r?i0,,. p'o.u"rio', Hish court ioi in" stlt" oli.ransana at Kam/PSI. 4y- HIGH COURT DATED i2411112025 I I ! i ORDER CRLP.No.3838 of 2021 1'Utr: l. lL. {; t () q-1 :+ 03 P 8t 2W * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q 1 l> 3 l'v