The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana,, rep. by public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. 9. Saidulu, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged Major, Tahsildar, Nareducherla Mandal, Suryapet District ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under section 528 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 the FIR No. 33 of 2025, dt. 10-03'-2025 on the file S.H.O. Nereducherla Police Station, Suryapet District for the offence Under Sec. 329 (3), 324 (4), 223 of BNS (Corresponding Secs. 441, 425, 1BB of t.p.C.,) l.A NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section S2B 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 ariest of the Petitioner/Accused in FIR No. 33 of 2025, dt. 10-03-2025 on the file S.H.O. Nereducherla Police Station, suryapet District pending disposal of the euash Proceedings This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri pALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i i i i t I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE 4 EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6141 OF 2l1tt ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitior lr _ accused seeking to quash the FIR No.33 of 2O2S on tr fite of p.S. Nereducherla, Suryapet District, registered for the I fences under Sections 329(3), 324(4) and 223 of The Bharatiya t,l raya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS, 2023").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri palle Sriharir ath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Ra: Veeramalla, learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respcr dent No.1 _ State. 3 The learned petitioner counsel submitted that he petitioner has an order of injunction in her favour and thai the revenue authorities do not have any power to initiate pro*rr dings under such circumstances and there is clear bar under Section 195 Cr.P C., therefore, the complaint is not maintainabl: against her and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against tr( r.

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor has ;ubmitted to pass appropriate orders )

5. Perused the record

6. ln the present case the Tahsildar, Nereducherla has addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Nereducharla' based on which an FIR was registered under Sections 329 (3), 324 (4), 223 of BNS, alleging that the accused has trespassed into the land under his control. He referred to the orders of the RDO, Huzurnagar, under which he is appointed as the custodian of the said land. The orders of the RDO daled 22.10.2024 vide proceedings No.8t49412024 are referred to by the Tahsildar.

7. A perusal of the said orders reveal that the RDO has appointed Tahsildar, Nereducherla as the receiver of the Court and directed to take the disputed land into custody and not to allow anyone into the disputed land and keep the said land in his custody till further orders of the competent authority. Thus, the Tahsildar is a Subordinate to RDO, he was appointed as a custodian and he was supposed not to allow anyone into the disputed land. But he cannot be a complaining authority. lf at all any such alleged incident has occurred, the complaint should have been filed before the,concerned Court by the RDO or if the Tahsildar is authorized by the RDO, in this regard, then the Tahsildar has to l le a complaint before the concerned Magistrate Court. I The definition of 'complaint'under Section 2(c) of the Cr p C is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "(d) "complaint" means any allegation made < rally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his tet ing action under this Code, that some person, whethe. kiown or unknown, has committed an offence, but does t of include a police repoft."

9. ln this case Tahsildar is not authorized by r s superior to lodge a complaint, but he has sent his report to the itation House officer through a letter and the Station House officer I as registered the FIR based on the letter. '10. Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.p.C. is extracted rereunder for the sake of reference: "195. Prosecution for contempt of tawful auihority of public seruants, for offences against pubii : juitice and for offences relating to documents liven in evidence.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance _ . (a) (i) of any offence punishable under secticr s 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the lndian penal Cod,, (45 of \ 1860), or \ 1ii1 of any abetment of , or attempt to con r trt, such offence, or 4 \ (iii) of any ciminat conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public seruant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is ad m i n i st r ativel Y s u bo rd i n ate ; " 1'l . The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Venkateswara Rao Kesineni v. Sfate of Andhra Pradeshl , wherein it has discussed the decision in Paiaavula Keshavulu v' Sfate of A'P' & Anothel and order dated 26.09.2019 in Criminal Petition No.l541 of 2019 and has held that wherein the petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 188 and 283 of IPC' ln the said case' there was no complaint by the public servant and Sub-lnspector of police filed the charge sheet. The learned Judge after considering thematterquashedtheproceedingsagainstthepetitionertherein opining that there is a clear bar under Section 195(1Xa) of the Cr.P.C.

12. The learned petitioner counsel also relied upon a decision of this High Court in Marati Chandra Shekar Yerra Shekar v' The State of Telangana3, wherein this High Court following the decision II ' ro t6 (z) ALT (cri) 7a (A P.) ' Crl.Pctili{rn No.6079 of 202l, dated l'1.09'2021 f, of the Apex Court in Pankaj Aggarwal y. Sfate ,t Dethf and Durgacharan Naik v. Sfate of Orissas has quashed the proceedings.

13. ln the present case the FIR is registered ba;:d on a letter addressed by the Tahsildar, who is not authori; ed to file a complaint and further it is not filed before the Magistr rte, therefore, it is bad in the eye of raw. rn the right of the abov. said decision and in view of the above herd discussion, the petiticr is entifled to be allowed.

14. ln the result, the Criminal petition is allcv ed and the proceedings against the petitioner- accused in FIR \ t.33 o,f 2025 on the file of P.S. Nereducherla, Suryapet District are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed \ To, SDL BAHAVANI SWAMY AS J STANT REGISTRAR '( //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 The Judicial F irsl Class Magistrate at Huzurnaoar. the Station House Officer. Nereducherla polic6 Station juryapet District one_CC to SRt pALLE SRtHARINAiH, na*crte i6Fiic i' The Public Prosecutor, Hioh Courtof iLi";g;;;i-Fiy;; abad [OUT] Two CD Copies SM0, HIGH COURT DATED: 1010912025 ORDER GRLP.No.6141 of 2025 \.:D i4 ( o 1i,AN ?026 t o') \ a * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION &o