The High Court · 2025

BETWEEN A. Raghu Rarn Reddy,, S/o. A. Linga Reddy, Age 38 years, Occ. Pvt. Emptoyee, H.No.Plot No 138. Sriramnagar Colony, Block - C, Opp. Chirec public Schoot, Kondapur, Ralga Reddy District. ...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.2/Defacto-Complainant AND

1. M/s. Daggubati Farms And Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Sri. Daggubati Suresh Babu, S/o.Late Daggubati Ramanaidu, Age 66 years, Occ. Business, R/ o. H. No.8-2-2921821 J Alll6, Jubitee Hilts, Hyderabad-S00033

2. Daggul)ati Rajeshwari,, Wo.Late Daggubati Ramanaidu, age 78 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.8-2-292l82lJllll16, Jubitee Hilts, Hyderabad-500033 3. Daggurati Lakshmi,, Wo. Daggubati Suresh Babu, age 60 years, . Occ. Housewife, Rio. Plot No.27B, Road No.11, Film Nagar, phase-2, Jubilee Hills, F,yderabad-500033

4. Daggubati Neeraja,, Wo. Daggubati Venkatesh, aged 59 years, Occ. Fousewife, Rlo.6-77-2, Anahatha Road No.2, Lalamma Gardens, Dollor Hills, I\4anikonda, Rangareddy District, Pin-500089 ...PetitioneF/Petitioners/Accused No. I TO 4

5. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor t{igh .Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ,...Respondent No.1/Respondent No.1/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granting stay all further proceedings of the tridl court including the appearance of the petitioner in CC' Sr.No.6590 of 2024 vide orders dated A3rc7'/2fr25 passed in lA.No.1 ot 2025 in CRLP.No.6251 ot 2025 . This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the .arguments Sri.PRaghuram Senior Counsel representing of Sri P. SRI RAM Advocate for the Petitioner and the 5ir Sri.Palle Nageshwar Rao Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 '(1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE TELANGANA HYDERABAD H,ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6251 oF 2()25 L7.L2.2o/25 Between: M/s Daggubati Farms And Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Sri traggubati Suresh Babu & three others AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public F'rosecutor & another Petitioners ...Respondents OR ER: , Petitioner-company along with other petitioners claim to be the lawful owners and possessors of Acs. 4.25 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. I72lA and 28 L lA of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same through four registered sale deeds from the true and lawful owners, and have been in continuous possession and enjoyment ever since, with its title duly mutated in the revenue rer:ords under the R.O.R. Act. Prior to purchase, petitioners conducted due diligence by obtaining legat opinion and issuing public notices, artd having received no objections, claim to be bona fid.e purchasers for valuable consideration. Petitioners further rely on the 2 Gazette Notification dated 03.O3.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which itself acknowledges petitioners' title and possession, and on disposal of Writ Petition No. 10163 of 2005 directing acquisition only by due process of law. It is contended that Respondcnt No.2, who was never in possession of the land, has subsequently filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 65 of 2024 disputing title and, despite the matter being purely civil in nature, has lodged a false criminal complaint 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 any criminal offence, and continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners/Accused 3 to 6 would amount to an abuse of process of lar,r', therefore, prays to quash CC(SR).No.6592 of 2024 on the file of learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 322, 324(5), 329(4), 335, 336(3),339,61(2) and section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nya/a 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. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, relying on the 3. principles laid down in Stcte of Haryana a. Bhaian hlt, contends that the present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). He submits that although '1toez1 Supp (1) SCC 335 \ s". 3 registration of an FIR is mandatory in cases disclosing cognizable (_r offences as kteld in Lalita Kumari u. State of U.P.z, the dispute in the present case is purely civil in nature and criminal law is being misused to exert pressure on petitioners, which is impermissible, as held in Anukul Singh u. State of V.e.s. It is argued that Respondent No.2 failed to disclose the commission of any cognizabli,e offence or explain the inordinate d,:lay in lodging the private complaint, clearly indicat ing mala fides, especiallf in view of the pending civil litigation. Further, the mandatory procedure prescribed in Priganka Sriuastaua v. State of U.P4. was not followed, as no proof was produced to show that the complaint vras first taken to higher police authorities when FIR was allegedly not registered. It is also contended that Respondent No.2 had already ava:led a civil remedy against the very same.set of allegations against the same persons, as such, he ought not to have maintained the private complaint as the element of criminality is absent, hence, the same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, contrary to the principles l:eid down in S.IV. Vijagalakshtni a. State of Karnataka, wherein it v,as held as follows: "Tlp obuious caueat beirry that tlrc allegations, euen if hauing a ciuil Jl<utour to thent, must printa facie disclose an oueruhelming element of criminalitg. Irt tlrc absence of the. element of criminatitg, if both ciuil and crhruiruil cases are qllowed to corttinue, it will definitelg amount to abuse of tlrc ,zrocess of the Court, uthich the Courts haue alwags tried to preuent 21zot+12 scc I 3lcrl.Appeal No. 4250 of 2O2S| '(2015)6S(rC237 \ I 1 I I I i I i ; I i i i l 4 bg puttirtg a stop to any such crimirrul proc.eedin.g, where ciuil proceedings haue alreadg been instituted with regard to the sanre fssue, and the element of cininality is absent- If such element is absent, the prosecution in questiott would haue to be quashed. ln this cortrue.ction, Paran{eet Batra u. State of Uttarakhand (20131 1 I SCC 673 can be refe.rre.d to: "12. lVlrcther a contplaittt rliscloses ct cirtirrul o.fktrce or not depends upon tlrc nature of facts alleged therein. Whether esserrfial ingredients oJ' aimhml offence are present or rtot ttcts'io be juclged. by the High Court- A complaint disclosirtg ciuil transactiorts nlau also haue a criminctl terture. But the Higlt Court must see utlrcther a dispute uhich is essentiallg of a ciuil nature is giuen q cloak of crininal offetrce. In such ct situation, if a ciuil rernedg is auailable and is, in fact, adopted as /ras happened in this case, the. High Court should ttot hesitate to quash the ciminal proceedirtgs to preuent abuse of process of the Court."

4. Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-State contends that the complaint contains specific allegations attracting the offences aileged against the petitioner and, since the petitioner has 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.

5. Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contends that Respondent No.2 is the lawful owner of the subject property under a clear and unbroken chain of title originating from registered plot sales made pursuant to an approved Gram Panchayat layout during Lg87-Lg8g, leaving no land available for petitioners' alleged vendors to sell in 2OO tr, and that petitioners and others, in collusion with police officials, fabricated documents to illegally usurp the \ property of\ooor plot owners. He alleges that on 3O.1O.2O21, petitioners, 5 with police grrotection, forcibly entered the existing residential colony using heavy machinery and demolished houses and temples, rendering several families homeless, thereby committing cognizable offences under the Bharatiya N1,aya Sanhita, 2023. Respondent No.2 asserts that revenue entr.es do not confer title, denies petitioners' claim of purchase, and contendrs that the criminal complaint was filed only after the police failed to act on his complaint despite documentary proof and after he instituted a civil suit for declaration of title. According to him, the criminal proceedings are bona fide, disclose serious offences, and the judgments r-elied upon by petitioners do not apply, therefore the Criminal Pel.ition deserves to be dismissed. Respondent No.2 relies on S.N. Vijagalakshmi a. State of Karnatakas; Kathgagini a. Sid,hclrcrth P.S.Red.dgF; Priti Saraf a. State of NCT DelhiT; K. Jagadish u. Udaga Kumar G.S8; Sau Kamal Shiud,lt Poko,rekor u. State of K,arnata,kae; Chelakamarithi Venkatesuarlu a. State of Andhra Protdeshro.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, the case of petitioners, precisely, is that they are lawful owners and possessors of the subject land, having purchased it through registered sale deeds in 20Ol and secured mutation in revenue records, and also in continuous possession for over two decades; and that the ' 2o2s LIVE L.{w (sc) 758 n 2o2s LIVE L.d\w (sc) 712 'LL2o2r (sc) 1s4 tcrl.A.No.s6 0f 20'20 clatecl 10.1.2020 ncrl.A.No.255 0f 2019 datect t,2.2.20t9 'ocrl.A.fo.JOg92 ot' 20I g dntecl 3t.7.2otg \ 6 dispute raised b), Respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature and is (r., already the subject matter of a civil suit, therefore, the criminal complaint has been filed with mala ftde intent, to harass and extort money, and even if the allegalions are taken at face valtte, rro criminal offence is made out, ancl continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. .

7. On the other hand, the case of Respondent No.2, precisely, is that he has clear and prior title to the property through registered plot sales made pursuant to a Gram Panchayat-approved layout during lg87-1989. He denies petitioner's title and alleges that petitioner and others fabricated documents to usurp the land of poor plot owners; and that the revenlle entries being claimed by petitioners do not confer titte on petitioners, and that no land remained with the original owners of the plots, to be sold to petitioners in 2001, and therefore, petitioners have fabri,cated the documents. Respondent No.2 further alleges that petitioners have forcibly entered and dernolished the houses and temples, and the police also colluded with petitioners on 3O.LO.2O2I, therefore, the criminal complaint was bona.ftde, as the complaint was made after police inaction and that the offences alleged require a criminal trial.

8. In vieu, of the backgrouncl of respective cases, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for petitioners (by relying on Vankina v. The S.H.O., Nagarampalem L&O P.S., 7 Gunturll) that though "it is not mandatory that every report shall be given to tht: police at the first instance and thereafter only they have to appl:oach the Court by way of a private complaint, however' the 2'd respondent approaching the Court at the fitst instance and filing a prirrate complaint without approaching the police shows that the complainant had approached the Court with a mala fide intention, il; seriously countered by Respondent No.2 contending that Respondent No.2 first approached Gachibowli Police regarding the incident clatt:d 30.1O.2021, that police refused to entertain the complaint and threatel-red him, and that he thereafter, approached higher police officials including the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, however, his efforts did rrot yield result, and it is only thereafter, Respondent No.2 approached the trial Court. In view of the specific rebuttal contention of Respondent No.2 asserting the reasons for his approaching the trial Court, the contention of learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanc:d.

9. Further, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 made specific t allegations against petitioners that they have fabricated the documents \ of the sut:je,ct property, forcibly entered and demolished the houses and temples an<l the police also colluded on 30. 1O.2O2L. lt is also contended, these allegiltions even taken on the face value constitute the offences alleged aga: nst petitioners. "120u) r At.D (Cri) r .d 8 lo.Itisrelevanttonoteatthisiuncture,theinherentpowersoffi. this court under section 4g2 cr.p.c. for quashing an FIR, or a c.c', can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to Carry out the orders pa.ssecl untler the Code. Further, the Hon,bleSupremeCourtinSkodaAutoVolkswagenlndiaPriuate Limited o. The state of uttar prad.eshr2, categorically held that the HighCourthastoexerciseitsirrherentpowersrrnderSection 482 Cr.P.C. iu rarest of rare cases and the saicl power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection' ll.Atthisstage,learnedSeniorCounselseekspermissionto 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 him as per law' before the trial Court' I,2.

13. To, Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is closed' MiscellaneoLls petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed' SD'. SREENIVASA REDDY REGISTRAR ,TTRUE COPY" SEGTION OFFICER :-lX MetroPolitan Magistrate at 1 The I 2. The Station House Officer' Police Station 3. One CC to SRl. P SRI RAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI'Ashfaq Ahmed Advocate IOPUCI Gachibowli, HYderabad "1zozo1 10 scc 78l ,:.iir#J ,*iaiii$

5. Two COs to the ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State o'Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two Ct) Copies / TL/psl rfr- ,:1.;ii * HIGH COUR]' DATED:{7111212025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.6251 ot 2025 riE S (J ? I Jr}l 2026 * .1": ) DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. .ds,t c\ &