✦ High Court of India · 01 Jul 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 01 Jul 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
01 Jul 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,126 words

Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. 2 Burugupalli Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao, Aged about 81 years, H.No. 3-1-416,Occ Nil Vavilalapalli, Karimanagar ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 Quash Crime. No. 4612025 dated 22.1 .2025 on the P.S.Karimnagar I Town, at Karimnagar registered U/Sec. 1208, 420,468,471, 467, 447, 34 lPC, before the SHO, Cl of Police, I Town Police Station, Karimnagar so far against the Petitioner. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 in Crime. No. 46/2025 dated 22.1 .2025 the P.S. Karimnagar I Town, at Karimnagar registered U/Sec. '1208, 420,468,471,467,447,34 lPC, before the SHO, Cl of Police, I Town Police Station, Karimnagar so far against the Petitioner including my arrest by the 1st Respondent. :18,1"-.-' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumr:nts of Ms. C ROHINI SMITHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and lvls. SHALIN SAKANA, Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 ar,d none appeared for Respondent no.2 The Court made the following: ORDER "trtFE-}.'N , Y66.! ..4.' ^ :1*' ' ,/ ,/ ./ I I l I l THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4572 of 2o.25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.12 to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.46 of 2025 on the file of the Karimnagar I Town Police Station, Karimnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 42O, 468,47 1,467 and 447 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC')

2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1980, respondent No.2, along with her mother, purchased schedule lald situated in Survey No.954, Kattarampur, Karimnangar and after expiry of his mother, he inherited her land and sold parts of it. Since respondent No.2 is residing abroad, he appointed GPA holder and his GPA holder constructed compound wali in the schedule land. Taking advantage of the absence of respondent No.2, accused No.1 sold the schedule land and obtained No Objection Certificate from the officials of the SRSP by creating fabricated documents in the year 2014. It is stated that on

22.09.2022, the SRSP officia-ls inspected the schedule land in 2 s,(s,J crt.P No.a:j72 of 2025 Survey No.954 and demolished the compoun<l wal1, against which, respondent No.2 filed W.P.No.37553 of 2O22 and obtained an interim order. However, the accused persons colluding with the officiais maliciously attemptirLll to acquire the schedule land by creating false arrd fabricated documents. Hence, a case was registered uide Crilr,e No.46 ol .2O25 before the Karimnagar I Town Police. a Heard Ms. G.Rohini Smitha, learned tlounsel for the Petitioner as u,ell as Ms. Shalini Sakana, 1ea rned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-State. Though notice served, none appeared on behalf of respondent Nc.2.

4. Lear:ned counsei for the petitioner subrnitted that the alleged forged and fabricated documents are o I t he year 2014 and in the said year, the petitioner is not workinll in SRSP office and he is no way concerned with the issualce of No Objection Certificate. She further submitted that though rr.spondent No.2 obtained interrm order in W.P.No.37553 of 2022 on 28.09.2022, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint ot '.>_'2.O1.2025 with vague allegations against the petitioner. She alsc, submitted that on 22.09.2022, t!:re compound wall was dennlished at the l l i I i -sl(s-,J cd.P.No,4572 of 2o2s instigation of the SRSP departmental officials and that the petitioner, who is retired from his services, is not involved in arry such alleged offences personally. Hence, she prayed the Court to a-llow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against him.

5. On other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State submitted that the crime is at the stage of investigation. She further submitted that if there is no evidence against the petitioner, the Poiice will delete his name from the array of accused as the case is at the initial stage of investigation. Hence, she prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition

6. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court has perused the material avaiiable on record. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other SRSP officials aided accused Nos.1 to 11 for obtaining NO Objection Certificate and also refused to give No Objection Certificate to respondent No.2. Whereas, the said No Objection Certificate was given in the year 2Ol4 and the petitioner cannot be made accused for giving the said No Objection Certificate to { I I I l t I I I i 4 ,s(s,J ',rl P.No 1s72 af2A25 accused No.1 as he is not working in the SRSP oilice in the year

2014. lt is also alleged that on 22.09.2022, the: SRSP officials demolished the compound in the schedule land. Allgrieved by the sarne, respondent No.2 filed W.P. No. 37553 of 2022 ald obtained interim order. However, there is no vvhisper about the role of the petitioner to constitute the alleged offerces. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is considered opinion that the continuation of tf e proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of pro<:,'ss of iaw. 7 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is A lowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/ accusecl No.12 in Crime No.46 of 2025 on the file of Karimnagar I Town Police Station, Karirnnagar, are hereby quashed Miscellaneous applications, if any penct ng, shall also stand closed SD/- AHIVIED ABDULLA KHAN A$SISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J My 4 The Station House Officer, I Town P.S., Karimn a r District One CC to SRl. C ROHINI SMITHA Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for thr-, State of Telangana Two CD Copies MKN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:01 10712025 ORDER CRLP.No.4572 ot 2025 .,)- u 8Cl 620 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments