Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 535 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records and to quash the proceedings in CC No.342 of 2024, dated O4tOBl2024 On the court of judicial First class lr/lagistrate at Bhodhan for an offence U/s 120-8, 420, 464.506 r/w 34 IPC l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No. 342 of 2024 ' dated 04.08.2024 On the court of judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhodhan for an offence U/s 120-B, 420, 464,506 r/w 34 lPC, pending final disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. E. VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Shalini sexana, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri K. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: I THE I{ON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4958 0F 202s ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.342 of 2O24 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class lViagistrate at Bodhan, rer;istered for the offence under Sections 120-8, 420, 464, 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code.

2. Heani the submissions of Sri E.Venkata Sidclhartha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.shalini Sexana, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State and Sri K.Durga Prasad, leal'ned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the clispute is p,rrely of civil in nature and that the de f acto complainant is no way c oncerned with the alleged land in dispute. He further submitted t-tat even according to the de facfo complainant the accused ar<: encroaching the government land and that so far the accused have not received any notice from the government authority but it is lhe de facto comptainant who is raising hue and cry and mirking false allegations against the accused with a malafide ink-'ntion. He further argued that when the allegations are ) civil in nature, there is no reason to proceed in criminal cases and that the said dispute with regard to land under the alleged encroachment can be resolved in a civil case, while the de facto complainant has initiated the criminal proceedings against the accused herein. He further argued that the petitioners are the bread earners of their families and that they enjoy a good reputation in the society and are facing much hardship ever since this complaint has been lodged by the de facfo complainant. He therefore, prayed to allow the petition and quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.342 of 2024.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the 16'1 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses also reveal the allegations raised by the de facto complainant against the accused herein and that is not proper to quash the proceedings at this stage and that the evidence before the trial Court may bring out the actual truth, she therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record reveals that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 and the allegations raised against them point out that they have encroached a land which falls behind the house of the de :-.:. .? ^-<, . '. I -l facto coml,lainant. lt is the case of the de facto complainant that there is Gcvernment land behind his house and that the accused are encroaching on that land by creating forged documents. lt is his further case that the accused have put forth an ownership certificate granted by the Grampanchayath office which has no authority to sanction s:ch a certificate. lt is further alleged by lhe de facto complainarrt that under the guise of the said document the accused/pt:titioners are threatening the neighbouring residents to vacate thei. houses.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision ol the Apex court in Randeer singh v. state of uttar Pradeshl , wherein it was herd that firing of criminar proceedings in a civil disprrte is nothing but abuse of process of law on part of the complainant to implicate in a criminal case after a period of twelve years, who is neither party to the sale deeds nor a member of the Society, lt was also observed that criminal proceeclings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. There is nc whisper of how and in what manner, the appellant is involved in any criminar offence and the charge sheet, the rerevant \ part whereof has been extracted, is absolutely vague ' lzoz t I r+ scc oze 4

8. The learned counsel further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar v. Sfate of Karnataka2, wherein it was observed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P C' should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.

9. The matter no doubt appears to be of civil in nature, however' it further points out the allegations of forgery, criminal conspiracy and also threatening the residents of the locality Therefore, the truth or otherwise of the complaint would definitely be examined by the trial Court during the course of trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings of C.C.No 342 of 2024

10. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Judicial First Class lt/lagistrate at Bodhan, to dispose of C.C.No.342 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible strictly, in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. l '] 2024 l-awsuir (sC) 220 I I i : :,?f-arti@ ,/ i'' "r'' 5 [\4i ;cellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judrcial First Class Magistrate at Bhodhan' Z. lfre Sta ion House Officer, Folice Station Bhodhan-T Nizamabad District 5 o.; Cc to sri E. VENKATA SIDDHARTHA, Advocate [OPUC]' + t*o ccs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High courl fcr the State of Telangana at Hyde'abad [OUT].

5. Two CD CoPies TTS/PSL ?A- 1 I I I I HIGH COURT 1 DATED: 0510812025 ORDER CRLP.No.4958 c'f 2025 i," .' ..\ \ .\\,, o t: \::. \1. \. 19 SiP 2025 I, ,i :- !r ,,j -\ -J ,, ,li' CRIMINAL PETI-ION IS DISPOSED OF \r zat$ \rf v)