The High Court · 2025

1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. SRI.VIJJALA BIKSHAPATHI, S/o. Late Malaiah, Aged about 49 years, Hindu, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.H. No.9-1 2 1, Vevarayamjal, Hakimpet, Shamirpet,Medchal. ...Respondents / Complainant 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 quash all further proceedings in FlR.No.12412018 of Jawaharnagar Police Station, Rachakonda District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted on 23-03-2018 in lA.No. 1 of 2O1g in Crl.P.No. 355t ot 2018 until further orders. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying thal in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in FIR No.12412018 of Jawaharnagar Police Station, Rachakonda District pending the Criminal Petition before this Honorable Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and' upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Raveendra Babu, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant public Prosecutor (TG/AP ) on behatf of the Respondent No. .t and of Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Order:- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITIO N No. 3558 OF 2018 ORDER: ' This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 4g2 of the Code of Crlmtnal Procedure, lg73 (for short ,Cr.p.C.) by the petitioners/Al to A3 to quash the proceedings in FIR No.124 of 2018, dated O9.O2.2OI8, on the frle of Jawaharnagar police station. The offences alleged against the petitioners a_re under Sections 447,427 of Indian penal Code arrd Sec.3(l)(f) & 3 (2)(va) of SC/STs (PoA) Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the lst respondent State. Perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the complainalt is that A1 entered into an agreement with the complainant to purchase the complainant,s land for a sale consideration of Rs.4.25 lakhs, but only Rs.2 lakhs was given at the time of registration. The said registration was on

29.O9.2OO7. However, the amount was not given as promised after registration. Though, the complainant was in possession of the land, however, in his absence, the accused trespassed into his premises and removed the fencing-pillars. 2

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the agreement was initially entered into and payments were made. However, to demald more money, a false complaint was Iiled after 11 vears

5. l,earned Counsei relied on the Judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana o.nd. others a. Bhajan Lal and othersr and also in Ramautatlrr a. State of Madhga Pradeshz wherein it is held that; " 17. On the other hand, u.there it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although couered under the SC/ ST Act, is pim.arilg piuate or ciuil in nature, or uhere the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the uictim, or tuhere the continuation of the legal proceedings uould be ant abuse of the process of law, the Court can <:xercise its potuers to quash the proceedings."

6. The complainant and others registered the land in favour of the petitioners on 29.O9.2OO7. The complaint was frled on O9.O2.2O18 i.e., nearly lO Yz years later. What transpired for lO Yz years was not stated by the petitioners. No civil suit was filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of sale deed which was registered in favour of the petitioners. t t992 Supp (l) Supremc Coun Cases 335 '? 1ZOZZ7 tl Supremc Court Clases 635 't l I 3

7. lt is evident that complaint was filed after 10 % years and if more amount was offered or liable to be paid, the same ought to have been agitated before the Civil Court. None of the ingredients of penal provisions for which the case is registered are made out in the present case. Admittedly, the complainant was not present when the alleged removal of fencing pillars happened. No explanation is given for the delay of lO Yz years in lodging complaint.

8. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.l24 of 2018, dated 09.02.2018, on the frle of Jawaharnagar Police station for the offences under Sections 447,427 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(0 & 3 (2)(va) of SC/STs (PoA) Act, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To,

1. 2.

3. 4 q 6 VC/DL //TRUE COPY'/ Sd/-V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ CTION OFFICER The XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Mechal +'"?ti;ffi fiuie omcJr' Jawajarnasar P S' Rachakonoa ffiT[3:'ffi3tErbli" P'ot""utor' Hish court for the State of relansana at Hvderabad [OUTI' 3'": #i"" $ ;.'Ravee n d ra BAB U' Advoca te. t9j u ct E.nEi6 i;;;i K. venumadhav' Advocate [oPUc] Two CD CoPi HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 ORDER CRLP.No.3558 of 2018 1 \ \-i s r4 1 1 !t Rti 7]UE \, i.r i< ALLOWING THE CRLP