The High Court · 2025

2. B.Balakrishna, S/o. B. Srinivas, R/o. H.No.16-2-835/39 New Saida Aged about 61 years, Occ. Business, bad Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/De-facto Com plainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash the proceedings in FIR No88 of 2025, Dt. 2210212025 on the file of Chaderghat PS, Hyderabad Distrct. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 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 the appearance of the petitioner in FIR No.88 ot 2025 Dt. 2210212025 on the file of Chaderghat PS, Hyderabad District pending disposal of the quash petition. - I I I I This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kaluvala \/enkata Vara Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER i I . THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6325 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR.No.88 of 2025 before the Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2),,351(2) and 79 of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the respondent No.2 owns a plot near Malakpet Mutton Market with a lS-foot-wide road on the western side, which was previously disputed with petitioner, and a Court judgment ruled in favor of the 2nd respondent. On February 22, 2025, at around 15:35 hours, the 2nd respondent started construction work pursuant to the Court order. However, the petitioner allegedly trespassed onto the land, stopped the construction, threatened to kill the 2nd respondent and his wife, and used abusive language. Based on the complaint, the police issued an FIR against the petitioner in Crime No. 88 of 2025, and the case is currently pending investigation. 2 Aggrieved bf implication in the case, this criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri K.venkata vara prasad, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional public Prosecutor', appearing for respondent No.1 State, and sri KlN-Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submittt;d that the allegations leveled by the 2"d respondent, against the petitioner are false and baseless, with no iota of truth, and denied all other allegations. He further submitted that the mother of petitioner purchased a 3oo sq. yard lzrnd in old Malakpet, Hyderabad, via sare deed dated September 22, 1978, and the petitioner and his father have. been in possession and enjoyment of the property since her death, leasing it to M/s. yasodha Hospitar for car parking. He asserted that a lS-foot road on the eastern sicle of the property is rrsed for easements, as reflected in the sale deed. He contended that the 2'd respondent allegedly encroached upon this land with others, raising illegal strucr_ures and G,,,Y=W/ ;\::'1v::.;.:y';' - 3 depriving the petitioner of easement rights, leading to filing of i civil suits and writ petitions. He further contended that the lst respondent, influenced by the 2nd respondent and for monetary benefits, refused to receive the complaints of petitioner, dated August 29, 2024, and April 2, 2025, but registered the complaint of 2nd respondent against the petitioner. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the 2'd respondent and the mother of petitioner had filed suits for perpetual injunction against each other, with the suit filed by the 2"4 respondent being allowed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge,.City Civil Court, Hyderabad, uide cornmon judgment and decree dated July 3,2024, in O.S.No.341 of 2Ol4 and the suit filed by petitioner uide O.S.No.1501 of 2013, was dismissed. He contended that the petitioner trespassed into the 2nd respondent's plot on February 22, 2025, threatened him and his wife with dire consequences, and used filthy 4 f language, despite knowing about the injunction order against him, due to u'hich the 2"d respondent rodged a compraint before the P.S. chaderghat, and the petitioner is rrlleged to be a chronic litigant with a history of row,d_y behavior.. Thercflore, while advocating that the offences are serious, and a detailed trial is necessary to determine the true facts, and keeping in mind the instances and history of petitioner of Iiling complaints and writ petitions, incruding w.p.No. r32s6 of 2025, which was countered by the 2nd rr:spondent,s w.P.No. 14241 of 2o2s, demonstrates an attempt to harass the 2"d responclent under the guise of a civil dispute, he prayed this Court to dismiss this Criminal petition. 6- Having regard to the rival submissions merde and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the learned counsel for petitioner contended that pr:titioner is the owner ol- the said propert5r anrl he is having rights over the said properby, and it is the respondent No.2 who ocr:upied the property illc-gally and filed cases against the petitioner, whereas, it is the specific stand of rearned counser ror respondent No.2 that both the parties filed suits and as resultant, the right of respondent No.2 was confirmed and in 5 spite of same, the petitioner trespassed onto the land, stopped the construction, threatened to kill the 2nd respondent and his wife, and used abusive language.

7. On thoroughly perusing the record, it is noted that there are specific set of allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to interfering into the property and threatening the 2nd respondent and his wife. That being so, this Court is of the firm view that at this stage, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed. There are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, i[ any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR o SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPYII I I I . To,

1. The Vlll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri. Kaluvala Venkata vara Prasad, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies YIR /DLs HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 ORDER CRLP.No.6325 of 2025 c ! I,ri j ( o 0 4 Nrt/ 2025 ('( 2 C. * llnr: r;FC rS * DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. I