The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimjnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri AITHANABOINA RAMA RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Addl. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER --------:--- I THE HCIN,BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI E:ADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5098 ot 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Crirninal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sura!:sha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings 6r;ainst the petitioner/accused No.2 in Orinre No.1290 of 2024, on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, Flachakonda Commissionerilte, registered for the offences under Sr:ctions 341 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of SCs/STs (POA) Act 2015

2. Heard Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accur;ed No.2 as well as Sri Jitender Rao \reeramalla, the learned Addiiional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondenVState

3. Learned petitioner's counsel has submitted that the present matter is squart:ly covered by the order dated 28.03.2C25 in Criminal Petition No. 1 57 iE of 2024 and enclosed a copy of the s;aicl order.

4. Learned r\Cditional Public Prosecutor has not opposed but has submitted that r;harge sheet is already filed on 20.02.20115 and SC number is awaitecl. 5 Perused the record. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that l-e is obstructing construction works of the defacto complainant on the ground that the defacto comolainant was 2 encroaching upon a public road. Since Charge sheet is already filed on20.O2.2O25 and SC number is awaited and since the proceedings against the accused No.1 are quashed vide orders dated 28.03.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No.15768 of 2Q24, continuation of proceedings as agarnst the petitioner herein, who is accused No.2 in the same crime number, would be abuse of process of law since it is already observed in the said order that the matter is of civil in nature and the incident does not make out any allegations to attract the criminal proceedings. Hence, by applying the same analogy, this Criminal Petition is allowed in terms of the above said order adopting the reasoning contained therein and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 herein in Crime No.1290 of 2024, on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, are hereby quashed. o Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR - I/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER V To, The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar' Ranga Reddy- The SHO PS Hayathnagar Police Station' Rachakonda Commissionerate' Ranga Reddy District One CC to SRl. AITHANABOINA RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT]

2. 3 4 Two CD CoPies (Note:- CRI-P 1576812024Order dated 28'03 '2025 is Annexed as per Order) % HIGH COUR DATED:07l1Alil025 QUASHED/Al.I.OWED CRLP.No.509i3 of 2025 iHE Sra r*.- o(- o o (l 2 4 0[T i[m -l' ?^" ''^ -6* ) L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15768 of2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.1290 of 2024 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 5O6 of the Indian Pena-l Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST POA Act, 2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2024, de facto complainant lodged a complaint at Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate stating that in the year 2012, her husband purchased a plot in Shirdi Sai Nagar, Anmagal Circle 3, Hayathnagar, LB Nagar, with survey Nos.306, 31O,312,314, 316, 373 and 375. In tJ:.eyear 2023, when they began constructing a house on the plot, Mr. Siva Prasad, Mr. Venkat Reddy, and others stopped the construction, claiming that it encroached on a public road area. Despite having permission from the ZonaJ Commissioner, L.B.Nagar, GHMC, tJle complainant alleges 2 SKS,J Crt.P.No.1l;768 of 2024 that the p,)lice supported the opposing party and issued a show-causr, notice to her husband. She requests a detailed inquiry anC disciplinar5r action against Mr. Siva Prasad, alleging that he is threatening her husbald's life and trying to vacate therr lrom their plots using departmental po\r'ers €md monev pow(:r.

3. Heard Sri Aithanaboina Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing or behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri I). Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeaing on beha-lf of respondent No.l-State. Though notice served upon respondent llo.2, none appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in cluestion originally belonged to Mohd.Abdul Nabi and others, who executed a registered GPA in favor of G. Komuraiah irr the year 1993. He further submitted that the owners subse quently executed a sale deed through their GPA holder, G. Kcmaraiah, in favor of Pallera Ravi Kumar in the year 1996, and that the property is part of ttle Siridi Nagar Layout Plan in Sy.Nos.3O6 to 310, 312, 314,316, 373 and 375 at Anmagal, Hayathnagar Village. He contended that the property was later sold by Pallera Ravi Kumar's wift: and 3 sxs,J Crl.P.No.15768 of 2024 children to Atampalty Venkateswarlu in the year 2013, and subsequently sold to the petitioner in the year 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended

5. that the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property since 2016, ar.d has obtained necessary permissions and approvals from the authorities, including the GHMC and that the 2^d respondent is a stralger to the property and has no right, title, or interest in the same, ald that her complaint is false and motivated by ulterior considerations. He further submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and has been implicated in a false case, and that the allegations made in the complaint are entirely fa-lse and fabricated. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the documents filed by the petitioner demonstrate his ownership of the subject property. However, the disputes mentioned in the complaint appear to be related to the boundaries of the subject property. As such, the matter 4 SKS,J Crl.P.Ifo.1];768 of 2024 requires investigation. Therefore, at this stage, quashing the proceedingr; against the petitioner does not arise, as the investigation is in its initial stage. Hence, he prayeC to the Court to dis.miss the crimina-l petition.

7. In liget of the submissions made by both the learned counsel an,l upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the allegations leveled against the petitioner pt:rtain to offences under Sections 341 and 506 of the Indian ['ena-l Code, 186O, as well as Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Pre'zention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. However, the ingredients rerluired to constitute the aJorementioned c,ffences are not sufliciently established in the complaint. The primary allegation against the petitioner is that they obstruclred the construction activities of the de facto complainant ,rn the grounds that the complainalt was encroaching upon a public road. However, there are no specific allegations to suggest that the petitioner threatened the de facto complzrinant. Furthermore, the documents submitted by the petltioner substantiate his lawful ownership of the subject prc,perty, thereby negating any question of encroachment or1 the complainant's property. 5 SKS,J Crl.P.[o,15768 of 2024

8. In light of the above, the complaint appears to lack the materia-1 facts necessar5r to constitute the alleged offences. Additionally, the disputes between the parties seem to be civil in nature rather than crimina.l. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of law and is accordingly liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.1290 of 2024 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand closed. Date:28.03.2025 Sai K. SUJANA, J 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1li768 of 2O24 THE TJONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.IANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15768 of 2024

24.O3.2025 o9