High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J' SREENNAS RAO 1. Madhava Reddy' S/o Narasa Reddy, Ag e.44 Years' Occ. Business' Rio Flat No 402, E-Block' Seven Hills' Narsingi, Ranga ReddY District adhava Reddy' even Hills, Narsingi, Ra ...Petitioner/Ac cused No'1 Occ: House Wife' R/o Flat eddY District ...Petiti oner/Accused No'2 -n" State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High court at 'ft s,, ;tlk'{:'i**-'**,'*:t,n;'}:i;:i,.xli'"?ii'J?'il"J"'1"jffi dha, W/o M 2,E-Btock, S

2. S.Ra No.40 36 Yrs' nga R Age: "oiriii"l, ri.['oi.ui"t. ...Respondent No.2/Gomplainant r o*?. .,","d?;1H"#H;;n*utulli:,*id3**;ri#"lr"jd;Hl l,"fj:T:lf liii'XriXil;"i'Lj'"porit'nMagistrat the Petitioners/Accused Nos'1 and z' 16lil#; t.A. NO:2O 2022 F circumstances igh Court maY_ on the file ot KukatPallY at PetitionunderSection4E2ofCr.P.CplaylnPthatinthe stated in the Memorand#"tt?*ot of Crrmrnal Petition' the H [EFr,r#^'.,"J?,;l-llrg:nl*';*iri:'$:fl '1":i'1il':' Prashanth Nagar against tf't iJ"iiti"t"*/Accused Nos'1 and 2' This Petition coming on for hearing' upon' perusinq the Memorandum of nEl'i"g the, arourients of Mr' R Pavan "M vivekananda Reddv' ";;";;i'ti oi tn" Respondent No'1 and None Mr crounds of criminal "*'t'lJ'""i''p"t Reddy, Advocate for tnJ"pEiiti"^[it ""0- 11" Assistant Public Prosec;t; npp."i"O for the ResPondent No'2 The Gourt made the following: ORDER :;=F-.'.:jl a'" THE HONOURABLE CRIMI ORDER: SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAo PE ION o,J^t N 52 oF' 2022 This Criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.477 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge_ cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, for the offences punishable under section s 44g, 427, 504, 50g and 352 r/w Section 34 ofthe Indian penal Code, 1g60. 2. Facts of theca se: On 30.03.201g, the de_facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she was running a rental hostel named Ravi Home. Madhava Reddy, with maricious intent, had been harassing her for the past 30 days to vacate or increase the rent. On the said date, he arrived with 7 to 8 women and 4 men in a white Alto car and a Swift vehicle, forcibly entered the premises, abused her in filthy language, and assaulted her and her sister Rushmitha. The group stripped them, stole a gold chain with a diamond locket (2 tulas), two gold rings, the ccrv 2 zo.og.zoz5.However, DVR box, and her mobile phone' Hence' the cle-facto complainant requested to take necessary action' 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12'08'2025' there was no representation on behalf of respondent No'2' either in physical mode or virtual mode' However' to give one opportunity' the matter was posted to 19'08'2025' Subsequently' the matter was taken up on on that day arso there was no representation on beharf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode' As a final opportunity' the matter was listed to 25'08'2025 under the caption'for orders'' Even today' there is no representation on behalfof respondent No'2, either in physical mode or virtual mode' despite the matter being listed under the caption 'for orders'' lt appears that respondent No'2 is not interested in prosecuting the matter' Hence' this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits 4 HeardMr.R.PavanReddy,leamedcounselforthepetitionersand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Mr.M.Vivekananda ReddY, respondent No.l. I -..,-.Gi // 3

5. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either in physical mode or virh.ral mode. 6. Sub missionsofrhelearnedcoun seI for the petitioners: 6.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petrtioners have not committed the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the plaint, the alleged incident occurred on 29.03 .2[llat around I I :30 AM, whereas the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 on 30'03'2018 at 8:30 PM, with a deray of more than 24hours, without giving any explanation for such delay. 6'2' He further submitted that father of respondent No.2 had executed a rental agreement in favour of petitioner No. I on 15.04.2017,whereby the premises was taken on rease to run a pG girls hostel and the said lease agreement was expired. However, despite the expiry of the Iease, the father of respondent No.2 failed to hand over physical possession of the premises' In order to resolve the disputes rerating to the said rental premises, the petitioners, respondent No.2, and one Rushmitha, who is her sister have entered into a settlem ent ot 29 .03 .201g before the circle Inspector of Police, Gachibowli police Station. Both parties have 4 agreed to seftle the matter amicably' Thereafter' respondent No'2 lodged the present complaint suppressing the above facts' 6.3. He also submitted that one K' Nageshwar Rao filed a civil suit vide O.S'No'1 11 of 2Ol9'before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District' against petitioner No't and the father of respondent No'2' seeking eviction from the suit schedule property, recovery of damages' mesne profltts' and costs of the suit' The plaintiff therein pleaded that he had purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed bearing Doc' No'1073/2015 from petitioner No'1 ort' 23'02'2015' Due to his friendship with petitioner No'l, the plaintiff had leased the suit propefty back to petitioner No'1 on 10'i0'2015 for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.2,00,000/-' with an annual enhancement of 5%' Subsequently, petitioner No'1 sub-leased the suit schedule property to the father of respondent No.2 on 01.05.20r7. when petitioner No.l and the father of respondent No'2 failed to vacate the property or pay compensation for continued unauthorized occupation and the said suit was decreed orr29-05'2025 and directed petitioner No'l and the father of respondent No.2 to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over @ 5 physical possession to the plaintiff reliefs also. within two months and granted other

6.4. He further submitted that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the present complaint pertain to the very same property which is the subject matter of O.S.No.l 17 of 2019.He fufther submitted that subsequent to the seftrement deed dated 2g .03 .201 g between the parties, and when the above suit is pending, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint with an intention to settle the civil disputes. Hence, the initiation of criminar proceedings against the petitioners in C.c.No.477 of 2019 is clear abuse ofthe process oflaw.

7. Submi sslon s of the learn ed Assistant Public Prosec utor:

7.1 Leamed Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the specific allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the alleged offences' He further submitted that the grounds raised by the rearned counsel for the petitioners are disputed facts, and whether the petrtloners have committed the offence wil be reveared during the COurSe 0f the trial. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 6 Ci,

8. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parttes and after perusal ofthe material available on record' it reveals that that petitioner No'i and the father of respondent No'2 entered into a rental asreement dated 15'04'2017' for * t"::t:r;":ffi,;: hostel. Respondent No'2 and her sister' Rushm: hostel on rented Premtses'

9. The specihc case of the petitioners is that the lease agreement executed by petitioner No'1 had expired' Despite this' respondent No'2 has not handed over physical possession of the premises' As a result' disputes arose between respondent No'2' her sisters' and their father' To dissolve these disputes' petitioner No' 1' respondent No'2' her sister' and others entered into a settlement deed before the Circle lnspector at P'S' Gachibowli. In the said settlement deed' both parties agreed to resolve their differences and committed not to violate the conditions mentioned therein. However, on the very same day' respondent No'2 lodged the present comPlaint.

10. The record further discloses that' even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged offence took place on 29 .03.2018 at 1l:30 AM. However, respondent No'2 lodged the lWgr - l on 2s 03 20iB compiaint on 30.03.201g at g:30 pM, after lapse of more than 24 hours without explaining any reasons for the delay. In the said complaint respondent No.2 did not mention about the I """". rne settlement deed entered between respondent No.2 h^" ",",^, berore the ci..r. r,,p".l; ;r'"*;;:,:T.:""ioners record also revea.ls that the inl estigating oflicer, after conducting the investigation, filed a charge sheet' ancl the sanre was numbered as c.c.No.477 0f 20lgbefore the V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum_XIII Additional Metropoliran Magist'ate at Kukatpall-v. During the pendency oi.the pr.esert cri,rinal petilion, one K.Nageshwar Rao filed a civil suit vide 0.S. No.l 17 of 2019, against petitioner No r and the father orrespondent No.2, seeking eviction Iiom the very same schedule property that was leased to the father. of respondent No'2 by petitioner No. l through the rentar agreeurent dated 15'04'2017' I'he plaintirf t,re'ein sought evicrion ot.petitioner.No.r and the father of respondent No.2, atong with recovery of damages, mcsne profits' and othc' r'eriefs 'rhe suit was decreed on 2g .05 .2025, directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule propefty, hand over physical possession to the plaintill, and pay damages.

11. After perusal of the judgment and decree passed in o.S.No.117 of 2019, dated 29.05'2025, it is reveals that one KNageshwar Rao' the 8 a sale deed daled23'02'7015' ptaintiff therein' claimed rights over the suit schedule propelly pursuant to which was executed by petitioner No'l in his favour' Subsequently' the plaintiff therein leaserl out the suit schedule propefiy in favour of petitioner No'1' who in tum executed a rental agreement in favor of the father of respondent No'2 and the above said suit was decreed ot29'05'2025' 12. In view of the foregoing reasons' this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C C No 477 of 2019 is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liabie to be quashed' Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner in C'C'No'477 of 2019 on the hle of the V Additional Junior Clvit Judge-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally are hereby quashed'

13. Accordingty, the criminal petition is allowed' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending ilqny. shali stand closed' Sd/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, \,

1. The V AJCJ cum Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally at ?;X'Sill*Yft'i" orricer, Gachib"Yri P-"r:: :j1l:i;^"t-il3To,?',1'# Hish court tor the'State of relansana at

3. Two CCs to the ;;il;j;;;'ior' Hvderabad. [OUTI ;:"""";r; i;, R. Pavan Reddy, Advocate[oPUC] Two CD Copies 5 kar:l / I ; I HIGH COURT DATED:25 tOBt2O2s ORDER CRLP.No.3552 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1H'trS o n"i9 r- P 20fr t j z(,) i. i-: /'/ * './/