The High Court · 2025

High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BAGLEKAR AKASH KUMI\R Counsel for the Respondent No.'12: SRI RUDRESH DESHT)ANDE, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER EIF THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ITENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE No.358 of 2025 ORDER: Sri Baglekar Akash Kurnar, learned counsel tbr the revision petitioner and Sri Rudresh Dcshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fbr respondent No. 12.

2. Ttris is a revision filed to set aside thc judgment dated 07.01-2025 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri [)istrict at Medchal (hereinafter referred to as 'appellate Court'), in Crirninal Appeat No.70 of 2019 and the judgment dated 26.10.2018 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXl Metropolitan Magistratc, Cyberabad at Medchal (hcreinafteL referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.857 of 2014 and to direct the trial Court to conduct rctrial in C.C.No.857 of 2014 and to pass fiesh judgrnent in accordance with [aw. Brief facts of the case:

3. lnitiatly, the revision petitioner lodged a complaint before the Alwal Police Station against respondent Nos. I to I I and three others on

13.04.2014 at about 19:00 hours alleging that she got a call from Bheem Rao Colony, Old Atwal, at about 12:00 hours stating that respondent Nos.l to ll and thlee others entercd into her plot bearing No.l-40lA' Bheern Rao '."<: RY.J ( R[.RC 3i8 2025 Colony. and demolished cornpound wall with a JCB. Hence. reclucsted the police to take necessary action. The Police registe-cd a casc in Crirne No.337 o1' 2014 against respondent Nos.l to I I anrl thrce othcrs under Sections 447 and 421 o1- thc Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('lP(-') and took up investigation. Alter completion of investigation. poli:e filed chargc sheet against respondent Nos. I to I I and three othcrs under licctions 447 and 427 of IPC

4. ln order to pl'ove thc case, the prosecution exarn ncd P.Ws. I to.l and exhibited llxs.P- l to P- I 0 before the trial Court. Res ronde nt Nos. I to I I did not lead any oral evidcnce, but got marked Ex.l)- I i.e., a red coloured undel lined porlion in l6l Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

5. {Jpon exarnining tlte evidence adduced by the- l,rosccrurion, the trial Coult {burrd respondent Nos. I to I 1 not guilty lbr tht' ottbnce punishable under Scctions 417 and 427 of IPC and thcrefore, a,:quitted therl under Section 248 (l) olCr.P.C

6. Aggricved by the sarne, the revision petirioner pretirred Crirninal Appeal No.70 of 2019 befbre the appellate Couft. 'l-he appcllate Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosr.cution yrs-rr-r,r.r the 2 . 1:iis:' ++!=?1 -rr- RY.J CRLRC 358 2025 purport of Sections 447 and 427 of IPC confirrned the judgment passed by the trial Couft and accordingly, dismissed the criminal appeal' 7 . Aggrievcd by the judgrnents of the trial Court as well as the appellate court, the pfescnt revision is preferred by the revision petiliorterlde facto complainant.

8. In grounds of revision, it is pteaded that thc High Court has pou'er to exercise revisionary jurisdiction at thc instance of private parties to set aside the order of acquittal and also can direct for retrial in case there is rnaterial evidence that has been overlooked by the Magistrate couft (trial Courl). g. Fufther, it is pleaded that the trial Court committed error by acquitting respondent Nos.l to I t on the ground of non-examination of lnvcstigation Officer as being fatal to the prosecution case lt is emphasized that the Investigation offlcer is State's own witness and he did not enter the witness box and said conduct shows bias to help respondent Nos.l to 1l causing miscarriage ofjustice. The trial cou( has held that the prosecution ought to have examined the drivel' and owner of the JCB' Howcver, the fact that Investigation ofhcer hirnself did not enter the wltness box is sufticient to show the biased nlanner in which trial was \ 3 =+w. ::ri. - ' :"*r . t-.r. lJ.i jr r{r'.\ \ I<Y,.I ('RLRC -.i58 2025 corlducted bv the proscculion. Thcre is an error cornnrittcd by the trial Court in disregarding the oral evidence of the indep,:ndent rvitness. who has deposed about respondent Nos.l to ll entering tlre layout of revision petitionel and demolishing the compound,'vall.

10. It is further pleacled that the District Collector and as well as the CiviI Courr hai c givcn a categorical finding that the su-rjcct land belongs to the revision pctitioner and thereflore, entry into said land Lry respondent Nos.l to I I ancl den-rolition of cornpound wall attracts of'fences punisllable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. Lastly, it is pleade d that the finding of the trial Court and the appellate Court about non-existence ol plot bearing No.3-40lA, Bhcerr Itao Colony, which belongs to the ler ision petitione-r is contradictory to the linding of the District Collector's order, wherein it is stated that lhe rer'ision pctitioner's land is not in par[. area and it is land owned and constructed by the revision petitioner by keeping a pan of land open rvith old u,ell. I l. On the basis of afbrementioned grounds, the revision petitioner prayed that the.judgment of acquittal by the trial Court and confinnarion o1' the same b1,thc appellate Court in the appeal may be se. asidc, 4 .*ffiFF, RY.J CRLRC 358 2025

12. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioller and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fbr respondent No. I 2. In spite of service of notice, none appeared and there is no representation tbr respondent Nos'l to I l. Perused the entire lecord Fi ndinss:-

13. 1'o prove the casc ol the prosecution, there is a rleed to prove the ownership of the revision petitioner over the plot bearing No 3-40lA' Bhcem Rao Colony, the possession of the revision petitioner over thc said plot, illegal entering of respondent Nos.l to I I into the said plot and illegal demolition of the comPound wall.

14. As per the record, the case of the revision petitionel is that she is the owncr and possessor of plot bearing No.3-40iA, Bheern Rao Colony' Said plot was gifted to her by her husband, who in turn received the said propcfty from his n-rother through execution ol a gilt deed' In pl'ool- thereof, [he prosecution relied upon Ex.P-5 certified copy of the Salc Deed document bearing No.l053/1976, Ex.P-6 certitled copy of the Gift Seulemenr Deed bearing No.3018/2010 and Ex.P-7 certitred copl' of the Gift Settlcrnent Deed bearing No.l99711997Fu(her, in proof of .pbssession ol revision petitioner over the said ptot, the prosecution relied 5 -- \'--n:HB""t .,.,:_. I{Y,J cRl-RC :158 2025 upon tlx.P-8 thc original electricity bitl for the rnon hs of February and March, 2014 and lix.P-9 properly tax receipt for thc yerrt'2014-15. I5. '['he casc of'thc prosecution rvas thoroughly scrutinizcd by the trial Court and it is tbund that there is only one eyewitnes:; kr the irtcident i.e., P.W.2, rvho is a lclativc of the revision petitioner. The said P.W.2 dcposed that rvhile lre u'as corling to his fiiend's house in thc rronth olApril,2014 found that demolition was being carried on by using r.[CB in thc land of the re vision pctitioner. P.W.2 inlbrmcd abotrt it to P.W. I (re vision petitioner), who in turn gave complaint to the police. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that all thc accused were present when the d:molition wotk was being done. Exccpt lbr P.W.2. remaining witnesses i.e.. P.Ws.l, 3 and 4 are hearsay witncsses. To be more precise, firstly, upon being inlonned by P.W.2, P.W. I lodged cornplaint to police, secondly, upon being inlbnned by P.W. 1, P.W.i carnc- to the sccne of offencc rrnd lbund that the compound wall rvas dcn.rolishcd and lastly, P.W.4, rvho is husband of P.W. I deposed about thc information being narrated 1o hinr as thc events unfblded, rvhile he u,as in Mumbai. After examir.rirrg P.S/s. I to 4, the prosecution closcd its evidence as the driver and thc onmer ol' the JCB could not be exarnined, in spite of service of summons 6 ffi* r,/ -ra--- RY,J CRLRC 358 2025

16. I'he defence taken by respondent Nos.l to I I is that the revision petitioner does not have permission fbr construction of compound wall and that thc land does not belong to her. The trial Court perused the contents of Ex.P-4 order of this Court in W.P.No.667612013, wherein the revision petitioner sought for Writ olMandamus to declare the action of the Deputy Commissioner (Circlc- t6) GHMC, Hyderabad, who was trying to demolish compound wall constructed on Plot No.36A as illegal. Ex.P-4 lends supporl to the case of the defence that the revision petitioner is in occupation ol park area and that there are only 33 plots and thcre is no plot bearing No.3-40lA in thc layotrt of Bheem Rao Colony. -fhercfore, the said illegal construction was proposed to be demolished by GHMC authorities.

17. Coming to the proolof comtnission of off'ence, the only link between the accused and the demolition as narrated by the revision petitioner is that thc GHMC authorities demolished the compound wall on account oI' instigation by respondent Nos. I to 1 l. In case, the GHMC authorities are responsible for demolition, rnere watching ol said dcmolition by respondent Nos.l to I I does not give rise to commission of any olfence. The triat Court tbund lacuna in the case of the prosecution in not examining the driver and the owner of the JBC, as the same would have pin-pointedly rpvealcd as to who is resporrsible for the derrolition. Further'. tlie tlial 7 ' ._ , -r.r*F+64:.rFttri -- '*a RY.J c'lil_Rc 358 2025 Court held that u'hen thc driver and the owner of tht' .lCB could not be examincd, the Invcstigation C)fficer ought to have been exantined to fill up the gaps in the evidence ol'P.Ws.l to 4. Therefbre, thc tlial ('ourt held that non-exarnination o1- Investigation Officer is f-atal t.r the case ol the prosecution. Tl.re said analysis by no stretch of imagirration can be found fault with.

18. Coming to thc judgrre nt of the appellate Cour1. Ltpon examining the evidencc adduced by the prosecution obsetved that thc trial Court has rightly held that there is tto evidence to show that rcs;,ondent Nos.l to I I have demolished the cotnpound wal[. When the drivt:r and the owner of the JCB are not exalnined. it cannot be ascertained as [o who is responsible fbr the dernolition ol- the corrrpound wall. '[lie appel atc (]ourt also held that mere watchinq of dernolition is not an offence. lt is more parlicularly held that the prosecution tailcd to prove that respcnclcnl Nos.l to 1I engaged the JCB for dernolition of the cornpound u'al[, i.e., the oral evidence of P.W.2 alone is not suitlcient to prove thal r'cspondent Nos.l to ll committed of'tence under Sections 441 and,427 of ll'C. I'he appellate Court concluded that there is no iota of prool that respondent Nos.1 to 1 I have trespassed and demolished the property of the rcvisiorl petitioner. as I i t I i i I I I t i t I I , ! i I ! I '':r€J s'is'./ ''].inl1-]r.'!{: ITY.J ct{LRC 158 2025 such confimed the judgment dated 26.10.2018 passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.857 of 2014. t9. In the present revision, the revision petitioner is seeking retrial for exarnining the Investigation Officer to prove the case of the prosecution, as the driver and the owner of the JCB could not be procured to prove that respondent Nos.l to t I have engaged the JCB to trespass and demolish the compound wall existing within the plot owned by the revision petitioner. There is documentary evidence adduced by the revision petitioner herself showing that there is communication between the GHMC authorities and herself about the construction of compound wall without permission and attempts to demolish it. In W.P.Nos. 667612013 and 1862612016, the GHMC was directed to fbttow the procedure under Section 455 of the GHMC Act and the revision petitioner had to satisly the conditions prerequisite for regularizing. Further, no construction can be made by the revision petitioner without obtaining building permission from the GHMC. There is also uo evidence on record to prove that the GHMC acted only at the behest of rcspondcnt Nos. 1 to 1 I .

20. As held by both the trial Couft and the appellate Court, none is examined to proVe whether it is respondent Nos.l to l l, who have on their own accord demolished the compound wall or whether it is the GHMC 9 .- ' ."F?,'- : ",Ala.' ,-"ra"r.::+ l 'a\. .. ), - -'i-'"'11:i:.. ' . l -,,,.:: . RY,J CRI_RC i58 2025 authorities, who have demolished the compound wal I at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 to 1 1 . Be that as it may, there is evirlence ol P.W.4, who is none other than the husband of P.W. I , who deposed hat no permission is obtained from the GHMC ol Bheem Rao Colony for construction of con.rpound wall. The only ground on which the r,:vision petitioner is emphasizing her right to constfl-lct compound wall is that she is the owner of the plot and that the same is confirmed by the order of the District Collector. Proving the ownership over the plot bearinl: No.3-40lA alone is not sufficient as the prosecution has to prove that respondent Nos. 1 to 1i are responsible lor demolition of the compound wall

21. In the instant case, there is no concrete evidence about respondent Nos.l to 11 engaging the driver and the orvner ol the tClB to dcmolish the compound wall, while there is probability that the GHI'4C authorities might have demolished the cor.npound wall of their own acco'd by fbllowing their own procedure. To conclude, in case there is inab lity to examinc the driver and the owner of the JCB- the evidence of the . nvestisation Officer alone would be of no avail to prove the case of thc prosecution, as his evidence would only be hearsay evidence which u'ill not add any weightage to the evidence already adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4. 'I'herefbre, no useful purpose would be serwed bv conducting ret ial to examine the 10 I t ! I \ RY,J CRI,RC 358 2025 lnvestigation Officer alone. As such, there are no merits in the present revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgrnents in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2019 and C.C.No.857 of 2014 passed by the appellate Court and the trial Couft respectively. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The ll Additional District and sessions Judge tr/led hcal-tt/alkajgiri District, Ivledchal

2.ThelllAdditionalJuniorCivilJudge-cum-XXltVletropolitan[/agistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal 3 One CC to Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Uy ABK/PSL 1t ! 1 { i I i ! I l l , i I , l HIGH COURT DATED: 1310812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.358 ot 2025 ,4 ( 10 sEP 2025 :, .': _---.-.-l -j" DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE n0