The High Court · 2025

2. Paikarapu Srinivas, S/o Laxmaiah, Age 58 years, Occ. Service (Doctor) Both are R/o. 5-276, lndiranagar, Mancherial, Mancherial District. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad.

2. Manthri Radha, S/o Rajaiah Aged about. 46 Yrs, Occ. House Wife Rl/o, Adarshnagar, Chennur, Macherial, Mancherial District. ...RESPON DENTS/COM PLAINANT Petition under Section 482 ot 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 the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused in CC [tlo.42 of 2021 on the file Junior civil Judge-Cum-AJFCM, Chennur, Mancherial District for the offences punishable under sections 427.447 IPC R/w 34 IPC in the interest of justice. LA. NO: 'l OF 2021 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 stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners in CC No.42 of 2021 on the file Junior civil Judge-Cum-AJFCM, Chennur, Mancherial District for the offences punishable under sections 427,447 IPC Ri/w 34 IPC in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosectt rr on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER /-\ f, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE E'V'VENUGOPAL TIONNo.5()25 oF 2021 CRIMINAL ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused quash the Nos. 1 and 2 under SecLion 482 of Cr'P C'' seeking to proceedings against them in CC No'42 of 2O2l on the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-AJFCM' Chennur' District, registered for the offences under Section s 427 ' 447 read with Section 34 of IPC' file of the Mancherial

2. Heard D'Madhusudhan' Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E'Ganesh' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No'l /State' Thorrgh notice is ordered against the respondent No.2, none appeared for him'

3. Basing on the complaint loctged by the 2"d respondent/ Manthri Radha, dated 19.07.2019 against the accuseci FIR No' 159 of 2Ol9 of PS, Chennur, Mancherial Districr rvas registered aileging commission of offence of mischief causing damage by criminal trespass with common intension' The allegation against the accused is tha[ on 1g.06.2019 at about 07.00 hours, the petitioners forcibry and *regalry entered into the land of the de-facto complainant' damaged fe ncing wire and 20o cement poles with JCB and causing damage to a rune of Rs.1,15,000/- and when a panchayat u'as held on 19 06'20 19' initially the petitioners agreed to erect cernent poles and fencing and Page 2 of4 subsequently refused to reaffange the poles and f(:l dng. Basing on the said complaint, the police investigated into the natter and upon completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet in CC rlo.42 of 2O2I on the file of the trial Court. The trial Court, upon tak ng cognizance of the offences with which the petitioners/accused a: charge-sheeted, proceeded further.

4. Aggrieved by their array as accused in ,l l No.42 of 2021, the petitioners [rled the present criminal petition rr ainly contending that petitioner No.1 being a Government employee, s living far au,ay from the alleged scene of offence and the petitioner l,l r-2 is a doctor bv profession and they have nothing to do with the pre:i, nt case and that they u,ere falselv implicated in the present case with i view to grab the land of thcir sistcr. On the date of incident, the petili rners were not in the r.illage and atte nding their respective jobs. Since he mother of the petitioncrs filccl OS No. 100 of 2Ol9 before the lee r red Senror Civil Judgc, lv'lancherial, as a counter blast, tJle 2.d resl ondent [iled tl're presenl casc u'ith false and untenable grounds. The ;ubject land was giltecl to thc sistcr of the petitioners by their m(,1 :ler and on the request ol the rnother of the petitioners and husbarr I of sister of the petitioners, the olficials conducted a survey on )7.06.2O l8 and handed over possession of the same to the mother ar I brother_in_Iau, _\/. of the petitioners. Thus stating' it is requested to quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners'

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners' during the course of proceedings, while making his submissions' restricted his prayer to the extent of dispensing with th€ presence of the petitioners before the trial Court by granting liberty to the petitioners to hle discharge Learned Assistant Public apptication before dre trial Court' prosecutor reported no objection for dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court'

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor' without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present criminal petition' As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners' thc presence of the petitioners in connection with CC No 42 of 2o2 1 bclore the learned Junior Civit Judge-cum-AJFCM ' Chennur' M ancherial District is hereby dispensed with unless and until the same is required by the said Court' The petitioners shall appear either in person or through tlteir counsel when their presence is required before the trial Court and to that effect' they shall hle an af[rdavit bciore the trial Court' Any deviation in this regard amounts [o cancellat'ion of the relief granted with regard to dispensation of the prcsence of the petitioners' The petitioners are at liberty to $'ork out ) / , I .......-=::-::= Page 4 of4 the remedies as available under law includinll fiiing discharge petition / petitions before the trial Court raising t I : grounds urged herein before the trial Court. Upon filing of s rch application/ applications by the petitioners, the trial Court shalI pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably with n three months from the date of filing of such application/applicatuorr: .

7. With the above observations, the present criminal petition is disposed r-lf. M iscellaneous applications, if an1 pending, stands dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Srl - Sri MOHD tSMAtL Dt PUTY REGISTRAR iECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior civil Judge-Cum-AJFCM, Chennur, Mancheria District. 2. The Station House Officer, Chennur police Station, Man: rerial. 3. One CC to SRt G KTRAN KUMAR Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two ccs to pUBLrc, pRosEcuroR, High court for the li ate of rerangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies GR qt- HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ORDER CRLP.No.5025 ot 2021 14 \- t)r..11, i I 22 t,i rul (, I \ :;.' DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIC) qA @ \1 t5 'I