High Court · 2025

High Court of ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

2. Pouthagoni Krishna, S/o Mallaiah' Age:72 Years- Occ: House Hold' Fl/o Plot No. 46, Sri Veera r'"'"I""'rtr's'i 6oronv' Koheda (V)' Abdullapurmet (M)' RR Dist Mob- 90005 ootl-u*="o*DENT No',DE-FAcro ..MPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS prayino that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr#"t"e-ro*0. of Cririnit ietition, the High Court may q'utn the proceedings in C'C No 1675 of be oleased to call for '""o'It 'nA 2025 on the fite or xrri'iiiiiionli u"tropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at th" Petiiioners/ Accused Nos l and 2' Hayathnagar, at Hayatnnaga' 'g;i"tt t.A. NO: 10F 202s Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cri minal Petition, the High Court maY be pleased to staY of all further Proceedings in C.C. No. 1675 of 2025 on the file of XIV Additiona I MetroP olitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at H ayathnagar, at Hayathnagar against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos I and 2, Pending disposal of the Main Quash Petition in t\e interest of the justice' ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,.uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Criminal p"ition and upon hearing the irguments of Sri' tr/' NARSING RAo, Advocat"i"' in"'pttitilne' ano trl sri' M' Vivekananda Reddy' Assistant Public Prosec"o' on olh'ft of the Respondent No 1 and of Sri Shaik 'il;;'H;t.;i", Advocate for the Respondent No'2' The Court made the following ORDER: 1 ORDER: THE HOITOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4S2S of 2O2S This Criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A. 1 and A.2 in c.c.No. 1675 of 2025 on the file of XIV Additional Metropoiitan Magistrate at Hayathtagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 33 1 , 324 r / w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that on lg. lO.2O24 at 1O1S hours, the complainant-2"d respondent lodged a complaint to the police stating that he constructed a house in 201g in 133 Sq yards after obtaining loans and permission from the Gram paachayat and have been residing. On .lZ.lO.2O24, at I2.OO hours, they locked the gate from inside and went to sleep. Thereafter the petitioners_A. 1 ald A.2 criminally trespassed into the house by break open the lock and while they were breaking the lock, the complainJnt and his wife woke up and came out of the house. The intruders pushed the complainant and his wife outside and placed their belongings in the room. The petitioners opened the main door from inside. It is stated that a j 2 civil case is pending between the parties and interim injunction order was granted in favour of 2'd respondent and since 2O18' they were residing in the said house and expressed threat in the hands of petitioners. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the petitioners' Basing on the said complaint the police registered the case against the petitioners for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri M. Narasing Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No'1-State ald Sri Shaik Mohd. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No'2'

4. The contention of learned counsel for tlle petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and a false case has been frled against them by the 2nd respondent with concocted allegations' The petitioners are the absolute owners of the house' and 2"d respondent is a tenant who has not paid rent' In the absence of petitioners, the 2'd respondent broke the lock to grab the property, for whichr the petitioners approached the police' However, instead of registering a case against the 2nd respondent, police registered a case against' the petiLioners based on the complain t of 2"d respondent' It is further contended that petitioners purchased the plot from 2"d f f 3 respondent and constructed the house after obtaining loans and necessary permissions. They have been paying electricit5r bills and obtained permission under the Gruha Laxmi scheme, that the 2"d respondent filed a civil case vide O.S.No.3g2 of 2O23 for cancellation of the sale deed and petitioners frled O.S.No.922 of 2023 for recovery of rent and both the suits are pending.

5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the police are interfering in civil disputes inspite of submitting the documents by the petitioners. The petitioners claim that no offense is made out against them, and charging them with the alleged offenses is unsustainable. They apprehend coercive measures being used against them and seek to quash the proceedings against them.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, and learned Assistant Public prosecutor, respectively, submitted that there are specilic set of allegations against the petitioners ald that the complaint itself would show that the petitioners entered into the house of respondent No.2, and attacked him due to which he sustained injuries. Therefore, while advocating that the matter requires adjudication, prayed this court to dismiss the criminal petition. 4 r.)\

7. Having regard to rival submissions made' and on golng throu$h the material placed on record' it is noted that the petitioners and respondent No'2 are relatives- Further' the respondent No'2 frled a case uide O'S'No'382 of 2023 against his wife and petitioner No'2 stating that by way of cheating' they obtained his signatures and executed documents' and also fabricated gift deed in favour of his wife' upon which' she sold the property to petitioner No'2' The said suit is pending adjudication. Meanwhile' the petitioners allegedly entered into the house of respondent No'2' and attacked him' as a result of which ,a case uide FIR'No'1173 of 2024 was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 331' 324 read with 3(5) of BNS' alleging criminal trespass and mischief.

8. However, it is pertinent to note that even according to respondent No.2, there exists a document in favour of petitioner No.2, according to them they are in possession of the property and suit was filed for cancellalion of said document' Further' there are no orders of the court granting injunction in favour of respondent No.2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are liable for criminal trespass, as t}re respondent No.2 himself admitted that documents are in the name of I I r' 5 petitioner No.2, ald the petitioner No.2 also filed sale deed with regard to subject house. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. 9. In view thereof, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in c.c.No. 1675 of 2O2S on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar. Miscelianeous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. AHII{ED ASSIS f^1,','litilflfl / To //TRUE COPYII

1. The XIV Ad dl. Metro 2. The Station eraba at Hayathana gar House offi 3. One CC to Sri. M. NA RSING RAO, Ad on Hayathna gar, Hyderabad District 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSE CUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana vocate IOPUC at Hydera bad [OUn 5. Two CD Copies litan Magistrate cer, Po Iice Stati l SECTION OFFICER TTS/kam L!, --.:===a:1: -az''. .u ,/ -ac!. ' .- i. .. . .,'. .,.:\Y. ;. 22 AUB 206 -4. /.);: HIGH COURT DATED: l$t}tt2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.4525 of 202i CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED