The High Court · 2025

M/s. Daggubati Farms And Estates pvt. Ltd, Rep. by Sri. Daggubati Suresh Babu, S/o.Late Daggubati Ramanaidu, Age 66 yea?s, Occ-"eGindsJ,-R/o. H No.tt2-292 t B2lJ/t-il76, J u b i I ee H i I I s, H id eia b ad -sb-Od Jb P.?gg!!?ti Sajqglyal,,^rypr!?te Dasgubati Ramanaidu, ase 78 years, occ. tsusin€lss, R/o. H. No. 8-2-292t B2t J illll', Jubitee Hills, Hyderibad_56003i. DaggLbati Lakshmi, Wo _Daggubati Suresh Babu, bge 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. ptot No.27B, Road No.1 1, Film ttagar, efase_2, irbi6 H,il;: Hyderabad-500033. Daggtbati Neeraja, Wo. Daggubati Venkatesh age 59 years, Occ. ' H_ousewife, Rlo.6:77-2, AnahathtRoad No.2, Laiammi"G"rOens, btf-for HiflJ, Manikrtnda, Rangareddy District, Pin-500089. 2 3 4 5 The S:ate of,Telangln.q, !e! .py Hyderabad through S.H.O, Police Station, Gachibowl - p_ubtic prosecutor High Court Buildings, ...Petitioners/ Petitioners/Accused No.3 to 6 ...Respondent No.'ll Respondent No.1 /Complainant Petiti.n under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in ther Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granting stay all further proceedings of the trial court including the appearance of the petitioner in cc sR.No.6sg6 of 2024 vide orders dated 03107t202s passed in lA.No.1 of 2o2s in crlp.6447 ot 2025. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders grant vide order dated O3tO7t202S in l.A. No. 112025 further extended vide orders dated 3110712025,1310812025,03/09/2025,15t09t202s and z2to9t2o2s and in crt P.No.6447 of 2025 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the casb. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Sri Raghuram Senior Counsel appearing Sri P.SRI RAM ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondent N0.2. The Court made the following: ORDER / :9 IN THE HIGH T T'OR THE STATE OF HYDERABAD L CRIMINAL [,o.6447 0F 20/25

7.L2.2025 Between: M/s Daggubati Farms and Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Sri Daggubati Suresh Babu & three others AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Publi<: Prosecutor & another ORDER: ... Petitioners Respondents t,etitioner-company including petitioners claim to be the lawful'owners and possessors of Acs. 4.25 guntas of land in Sy' Nod' l72l A and 28 i /A of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same thrclugh two registered sale deeds from ihe true and lawful owners, and have been in continuous possession e.nd enjoyment ever since, with its title duly mutated in the revenue records in 2OO2 under the R.O.R. Act. Prior to purchase, petitioners conducted due diligence by obtaining legal opinion and issuing public notices, and having received no objections, claim to be bona ficle pxchasers for valuable consideration. Petitioner further rely on the Gaa>tte notification dated O3.03.2OO5 issued under Section 4(1) \-/ :, -;ir;ir,:. r:il: 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, which itself acknowledges petitioners' title and possession, and on disposal of W.P. No. 10163 of 2OO5 directing acquisition only by due process of law. It is contended that Respondent No.2, who was never in possession of the land, has subsequently filed CCSR No. 6586 of 2024 solely to harass and extort petitioners. According to petitioners, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not disclose ahy criminal offence, and continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, and therefore, prays to quash CC(SR).No.6586 of 2024 on the hle of learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 322, 324(51, 329(4), 335, 336(3),33g,61(2l,and Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for Petitioners; Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No.1; and Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitiorrers, relying on the principles laid down in Sto:te of Haryanq a. Bhajan la.ll, contends that the present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS). He submits that although registration of an FIR is mandatory in cases disclosing cognizable offences as held in La.lita ltumtri u. Storte of tI.P.z, the dispute in the '1toeZ; Supp (1) SCC 3s5 '({t+;2 scc I 3 .ll present case is purely civil in nature and criminal law is being misused to exert pressrtre on petitioners, which is impermissible, as held in Anukul singh v. state of tI.P.s.lt is argued that Respondent No.2 has failecl to clisclor;e the commission of any cogn izableoffence or explain the inordinate dele.y in lodging the private complaint, clearly indicatrrg mala fid.es, especially in view of the pending civil litigation. Further' the mandatory prrlcedure prescribed in Priganka Srioastaua a' State of U.F. ,vvas nol. followed, as no proof was produced to show that the complaint was first taken to higher police authorities when FIR was allegedty not r-egistered. It is also contended that Respondent No'2 had already availed a civil remedy against the very same set of allegations against the s:rme persons, aS Such, she ought not to have maintained the private ccmplaint as the element of criminality is absent, hence, the same is tiable to be quashed. It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to exer.cise jurisdiction in accordance with law, contrary to the principles laid down in s.al Viiagalakshmi a. state of I(arnata;ka. wherein it was held as follows: "The. obuious caueat being that the allegations, euen if hauing a ciuil flauour to them, must pnma facie disclose an ouenalrcinting element of criminality. h the absence of the element of crimirtalitg, if both ciuil and ciminal cases are allowed to continue, it will deftnitely amount to abuse of the pracess oJ'tlrc court, which the courts haue alutays tried to preuerfi bry putting ct stop to any such criminal proceeding, slcrl.Rppeal No. 4250 of 20251 o(zo rs) 6 scc 287 \ I I I I j , j I i i I 4 where ciuil proceedings haue already been instihtted uith regard to the same issue, and the element of criminalitg is absent. If such element is absent, the proseantion in question would. haue to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra u. State of tJttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to: ' *72. Wlether a complaint discloses a aiminal offence or not d.epends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. whetLpr essential ingredients of cnminal offence are present or not has to be iudged ba the High Court. A complaint disclosing ciuil transactions may also haue a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute uhich is essentially of a ciuil nature is giuen a cloak of cnminal offence. In such a situation, if a ciuil remedg is auailable and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case' the High court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to preuent abuse of process of the Court.D '

4. " Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-State contends that the complaint contains specific allegations attracting the offences alleged against the petitioners and, since petitioners have already entered appearance and the matter is pending adjudication through a full-fledged trial, the present Criminal petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.' Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed, Iearned counsel for Respondent No-2 5. contends that respondent No.2 is the lawful owner of the subject property under a clear and unbroken chain of title originating from registied plot sales made pursuant to an approved Gram Panchayat \_ 5 layout during 1987-1989, leaving no land available for petitioners' alleged vendors to sell in 2OOl, and that petitioners and others, in collusion with police officials, fabricated documents to illegally usurp the property of poor plot ou,ners. He alleges that on 30.IO.2021, petitioners, with police protection, forcibly entered the existing residential colony using heavy nrachinery and demolished houses and temples, rendering several families homeless, thereby committi ng cognizable offences under the Bharatiye Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Respondent No.2 asserts that revenue entrie s do not confer title, denies petitioners'claim of purchase, and contends that criminal complaint was filed only after the police failed to act c,n his complaint despite documentary proof. According to him, the crirr,inal proceedings are bona ftde, disclose serious offences, and the judgnrents relied upon by petitioners do not apply, therefore, the Criminal Petition deserves to be dismissed. Respondent No.2 relies on S.JV. Vijagatakshrni u. State of Karnatakas; Kathgcryini a. Sldharath I'.S.ReddgP; Priti Saraf u. State of NCT DelhiT; K. Jagadish a. Udaga Kumar G.S8; Sau Kamal Shiao,ji Pokarekclr u. State of Karnato,kae; Chelako;marithi Venkatesutarlu a. State of Andhra Pranleshlo.

6. llaving considered the respective contentions and perused the record, t;'re case of petitioners, precisely, is that they are the lawful t 2ozs LIVE LA'/v (sc) 7s8 6 2o2s r,rve LA'il (sc) 712 'L,L2o2l (sc) ls4 tcrl.A. No.5 6 of 2o2O clatecl tO.1 .2O2O 'crt.A.No.255 oi 20 l9 dated t2.2.2otg 'ocrl.A.No. to892 of 2019 clated 3t.7.2019 \ \ / 5 owners and possessors of the subject land, having purchased it through R registered sale deeds and secured mutation in revenue records, and also in continuous possession for over two decades; and that the dispute raised by Respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature, therefore, the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fi.de intent, to harass and extort money, and even if the allegations are taken at face value, no criminal offence is made out, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

7. On the other hand, the case ol Respondent No.2, precisely, is that she has clear and prior title to the property through registered plot sales made pursuant to a Gram Panchetyat-approved layout during 1987-1989. He denies petitioners' title and alleges that petitioners and others fabricated documents to usurp the land of pooi plot owners; and that the revenue entries being claimed by petitioners do not confer title on them, and that no land remained with the original owners of the plots, to be sold to petitioners, and therelbre, petitioners fabricated the documents. Respondent No.2 further alleges that petitioners have forcibly entered and demolished the houses and temples, and the police also colluded with petitioners on 30.LO.2O2|, therefore, the criminal complaint uras bona Jid.e,as the complaint was made after police inaction and that the offences alleged require a criminal trial.

8. In view of the background of respective cases, the contention of fuarned Senior counsel for petitioners (by relying on Vankina Chalmtndesuaranath v. The S..E[.O., Nagaramgtalem I&O P.S., \ i I t I I ) 7 (- GunturllJ thztt though "it is not mandatory that every report shall be given to the police at the first instance and thereafter only they have to approach the court by way of a private complaint, however, the 2na respondent approaching the Court at the first instance and filing a priv'ate complaint without approaching the police shows that the cornplainant had approached the court with a mala fide intention, is seriously countered by Respondent No.2 contending that Respondent No.2 first approached Gachibowli Police regarding the incident dateC 30.LO.2021, that police refused to entertain the complaint and threatened her, and that she thereafter, approached higher police officials incltrdir-rg the Commissioner of police, Cyberabad, however her efforts did n,rt yield result, and it is only thereafter, Respondent No.2 approached t he trial Court. In view of the specific rebuttal contention of Respondent No.2 asserting the reasons for her approaching the trial court, the contention of learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanceC \ \ 9- Iiurther, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 made specific allelgations against petitioners that they have fabricated the documents cf thc subjcct property, forcibly entered and demolished the houses and temples and the police also colruded on 30.1o.2o21. It is also contended, these allegations even taken on the face value constitute the offences allcged against petitioners. "12o l r) I At.D (c'ri) I 8

10. tt is relevant to note, at this juncture, the inherent powers of this Court und.er Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an F'lR, or a C'C', can i be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court, or to Secure the ends of justice, or to carry out the orclers passed under the Code' Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Slcoda Auto Volkswagen India Priaate Limited u. The State of tlttar Pradeshr2, categorically held that the has to exercise its inherent powers under Section in rarest of rare cases ancl the said power has to be High Court 482 Cr.P.C. exercised sparingly and with circumspection' At this stage, learned Senior Counsel seeks permission to 11. raise all the contentions available to petitioners as per law, before the trial Court. Considering the submission made, this Court grants liberty to petitioners to raise all the contentions available to'them as per law' before the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is closed' Miscellaneous petitions pend.ing, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 12

13. To,

1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, 2. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rangareddy District At Kukatpally.

3. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Rangareddy District. "1zozo110 scc 781

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderatrad [OUf]

5. One CC to SRI P SRt RAM Advocate [OpUC] 6. One CC to SRt Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies / NVB/psl k- ? HIGH COURT DATED i1711212025 ,! \ o c RDER RLP.Nrr.6447 ot 2025 .ES Irt () ? i JAN 2026 * t CLOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 10 .oe x("