High Court · 2025

5. Boddu Srinivas Rao, S/o.Bala Saidulu, Aged about 40 years, Occ.house wife, R/o.H.No.6-186, Adavidevulapally Vi lage and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 1 TO 5 AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 2, Sri Ramahari Prasad, Mandal Revenue Officer, Adavidevulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT 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 Quash the Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.836/2022 on the file of the Principal Judioial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, in the interest of justice -----7 l.A. NO: 2 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appeirance of the Petitioners in CC.No.836/2022 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice, This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of 'hearing the arguments of Sri HARI Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon KISHAN KUDIKALA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri, M.Vivekananda Reddy Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMIITAI PETITION NO.63l5 0F 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to S in C.C.No.836 of 2022 on the lile of the principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda for the offences punishable under Sections 447 dnd 427 of the Indian penal Code (for short, "IPC").

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that ot 20.12.2021 at 1 1:0O hours, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adavidevulapally, lodged a complaint vide Letter No.B/ 1046/2O19 through his oflice staff, stating that the villagers of Adavidevulapally, i.e., the petitioners herein, had trespassed into Government land in Sy.No.2S of Adavidevulapally village and mardal and were illegally constructing houses. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case against the petitioners for the above-stated offences. 2 SKTi, J Crl.P.No.63l5 of 2O25

3. Heard Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of their respective houses, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. They have been residing in the area for more than 50 years and have obtained necessary building permissions from the Gram Panchayat and have been regularly paying property tax. He further submitted that the Tahsildar issued notices dated 03. I2.2O21, calling upon the petitioners to submit their explalation for construcLion in Sy.No.25, and threatened demolition of the stmctures. The petitioners submitted detailed explanations and supporting documents in response. I

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that subsequently, another notice dated 13.72.2021 was issued by the then Tahsildar vide Notice No.Blrca6/2019, which did not mention the provision of law under which it was issued. Aggrieved by the said notices dated C3.72.2021 and

13.72.2021, the petitioners hled W.P.No.37613 of 2O2t, SI(S' J Crl.P.No.6315 of 2025 wherein this Court granted interim suspension of the irnpugned notices vide order dated 04 .Ol '2022 ' He further contended that despite the pending writ proceedings and the absence of a proper enquiry, the charge sheet was hled in a mechanical manner, without conducting any proper investigation, and with a malafide intention to harass the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and the veracit5r of their claims regarding sanction and ownership has to be adjudicated lt is not appropriate, at this stage, to examine whether the petiLioners have trespassed or committed any offence, and hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition' ln the light of the submissions made by both the 7 . learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the core aliegation against the 4 SKS, J Crl.P.No.6315 of2025 l petitioners is that they trespassed into Government iand in Sy.No-25 and were constructing houses thereon. However, the petitioners have placed on record that they have been residing in the said area for the past 50 years, and have obtained building permission from the Gram Panchayat vide Proceedings No.l lBPl2021 dated 25.10.2021. 8- It is also evident that the Tahsildar issued notices dated

03.12.2021 and 13.12.2021, directing the petitioners to provide an explalation for their constructions. The petitioners submitted their responses along with necessary documents. Notably, the notices issued do not mention the legal provisions under which they were served, and this Court in W.P.No.37613 of 2O2l has already granted interim suspension of the said notices, observing that there is no clarity whether the notices were issued under the provisions of any land encroachment law.

9. In the absence of any proper enquiry by the concerned authorit5r and without determining the legality of the possession and construction of the petitioners, registration of a criminal case under Sections 447 and 427 ol IPC is nothing 5 SI(S' .J Crr.P.I{o.63lS of2()25 but abuse of process of law' The filing of the charge sheet' despite pending civii and writ proceedings' and in the absence of a conclusive determination of encroachment' appears to be premature and unjustified' Therefore' the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed'

10. Accordingly, the Criminal PetiLion is allowed' and the proceedings against the pelitioners in C'C'No 836 of 2022 on the frle of the PrinciPal Judicial First Class Magistrate' Miryalaguda, are herebY quashed' Miscellaneouspetitions'pending'ifany'shallstand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// sD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR / I SECTION OFFICER

1. Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Miryalaguda 2. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nidmanoor 3. The Station House Officer'Police Station Adavidevulapally'Nalgonda 4. One CC to SRl. HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] District

6. Two CD CoPies AG/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRLP.No.6315 of 2025 ltsEHTRo (_) 24 JUi 2 025 ( I Pz .: i..: .2; CRLP IS ALLOWED a