The High Court · 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 quash C.C.S.R.No.6589 of 2025 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate at KukatPallY. ,, i]: l.A. NO: 1OF :2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased lo stay all turther proceedings, including appearance of the Petitioners in C.C.S.R.N0.6589 of 2024 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate at (ukatpally pelding disposal of the above case, before this Hon'ble Court. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Between: Govindula Sadanandam,, S/o. Govindula Keshavulu, Age 5l years, Occ Pvt Employee, R/ o.H.No.2-80/ 2, Laxmi Nilayam, Govt. School back side street, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondent No.2/ Respondent No.2/Defacto-complainant AND

1. Suresh Productions Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by Sri. Daggubati Suresh Babu, S/o.Late Daggut,ati Ramanaiciu, Age 66 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.8-2- 2921821 J lllll6, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.

2. Suresh Productions, Rep. by its Managing Director, Ramanaidu Studios, R/o. H.No.8-2-292182/Jilll16, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.

3. Daggubati Rajeshwari, W/o. Late Daggubati Ramanaidu, age 78 years, Occ Eusine:;s, R/o. H.No 8-2-2921821 J41 1 16, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. 4. Daggubati Suresh Babu, S/o.Late Daggubati Ramanaidu, Age 66 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.B-2-292l82lJllll16, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.

5. Daggubati Venkatesh, S/o.Late Daggubati Ramanaidu, Age 63 Years, Occ Cine A()tor, No.6-77-2, Anahatha Road No2, Lalamma Gaidens, Dollor Hills, Manikonda, Rangareddy District, Pin-500089. . .. Petitioners/Petitionerc/Accused No.1 to 5

6. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad through S.H.0, Police Station, Gachibowli. ...Respondent No.'ll Respondent No.1/Complainant Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimirial Petition, the High Court may be pleased trl vacate the interim orders granting stay all further proceedings of . -'l-.. the trial court including the appearance of the petitioner in cc sr.no.6590 of 2024 vide orders dated 0310712025 passed in lA.no.1 ot 2025 in Crlp.6370 ol2025. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the cincumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased it is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders in Crl P.No.6370 of 2025 and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of tne case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P SRI RAM, Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri P.Sri Ram, Advocate for the Petitioners and the 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 {,'l IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A CRIMINAL PETITIO NNo. 6370 0F 2()25 L7.L2.2o25 Between: Suresh Productions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Sri Daggurbati Suresh Babu & four others AND The State of 'l)elangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor- & another Petitioners Respondents ORDER: I)etitioner-company along with other petitioners claim to be the lawful ovrners and possessors of Acs. 7 -23 gtntas of land in Sy' No' 227 /A of Gopanpally \riliage, serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, hav. ng purchased the same through registered sale deeds from true and laviful owners, and. have been in continuous possession and enjoyment e'rer since, with its title duly mutated in the revenue records rn 2OO2 under the R.O.l?. Act. Prior to purchase, petitioners conducted due diligencr: by obtaining legal opinion and issuing public notices, and having received no object-ions, claim to be bona fide pwrchasers fOr valUable consideration Petitioners further rely on the Gazette \ d/ d.'r; 2 notification dated L6.O4.2OO5 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which itself acknowledges petitioners' title and possession, and on disposal of Writ Petition No. 1O163 of 2005 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. 6589 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 any criminal offence, and continuatiron of criminal proceedings against petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, and therefore, prays to quash CC(SR).No.6589 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),339,6L(2) and Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023. Heard Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, learned senior counsel

2. 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 the petitioners, relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana a. Bhqian ylt, contends that the present criminal proceedings are tiable 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 '(19? supp (1) SCC 335 i 3 offences as held in Lalitrr. Kumo;ri a. State of A.P.2, the dispute in the ,l present case is purely civil in nature and criminal law is being misused to exert pre:ssure on pr:titioners, which is impermissible, as held in Anukul Stnryh a. State of U.e.s. It is argued that Respondent No.2 has failed to disclose the corrrmission of any cognizable offence or explain the inordinate dr:lay in lodging the private complaint, clearly indicat ing mala fides, especially in view of the pending civil litigation. Further, the mandatory 6rrocedure prescribed in Priganka Sriuastatxl a. State of U.e+. was not followed, as no proofl was produced to show that the complaint was first taken to higher police authorities when FIR was allegedly not registered. [t is also contended that Respondent No.2 had already availed a civil remedy against the very same set of allegations against the r;ame persons, as such he ought not to have maintained the private com'claint as the element of criminality is absent, hence, the same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to ext:rcise jurisdiction in accordance with law, contrary to the principles le:id dou,n in S.IV. Vijagalakshmi a. Stqte of Karnato,ka, wherein it was held as f<rllows: " Tlte obuious coueat being that tlrc allegatiotls, euen if hauing a ciuil flauour to thent, nwst ytirna facie dist:lose an ouertuhelnting elenrcnt of crinunalill1. h the absence o.f tlrc elentertt of crininality, if both ciuil and cirn.inal cases are allowecl to contirue, it tuill definitelg antount to abuse o.f the.p'rocess of the Oourt, uhich the CourTs haue alutags tried to preuent bg put.ting a stop to aqA suclt crirnitutl proceeding, uthere ciuil proceedings haue already been i,rctituted tuitlt regard to the same issue, and the '1zot+12 scc r tlcrt.Appeal No. 4250 of 20251 '1zo r sy 6 scc 287 \ 4 element of criminalitg is absent- If such element is absertf, the prosecutiort in question would" haue to be quaslrcd. In this connectiott, Paramjeet Batra u. State of Llttarakltancl (2O13) I I SCC 673 cant be refeted to: "12. Whether a complainf rJi;^close.s a criminal offetrce or not depend.s upon the nature of facts ctlleged. tlrcrein. whether essenl:ial ingredients o.f crintinct.l o.fferLce are present or not has to be.iuclged by tlrc High court. A cornplairrf rjiscloslnq cipil transar:tions tnaa also haue a crirrritvtl texture.. But the Ltigh Court mrlst see ruhethei a dispute whictt is essertiallg of a ciuil nature is giuen a cloak of ciminal offence. In such a situation, if a ciuil rentedy is auailable and is, itt fact, adopted as has happene.d in this case, the Itigh courl shottld not lp-sitate to quash tlrc criminal proceeclitrgs to prczuent a.buse of trtrocess of tle C'ourt."

4. Mr. Palte Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-State contends that the complaint contains specific allegations attracting the offences alleged against 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, learned 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 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 20O 1, and that petitioners and others, in collusion with police officials, fabricated documents to illegally usurp the property of poor plot owners. He alleges tha.t on 30.1O.2021, petitioners, ) with pblQe protection, forcibly entered the existing residential colony ./ 5 :: ' using hearry lachinery and demolished houses and temples, rendering several families homeless, thereby committing cognrzable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Respondent No-2 asserts that revenue entrjes <1o not confer title, denies petitioners' claim of purchase' and contends that criminal comptaint was filed only after the police failed to act on his complaint despite documentary proof. According to him, the crirninal proceedings are bona fid"e, disclose serious offences, and the judgments relied upon by petitioners do not apply, and therefore the Criminal Petition deserves to be dismissed' Respondent No'2 relies on s.N. viio/go;takshmi a. state of Karno:takasl Kathgagini u' sidholrath P.s.ReddgF; Priti saraf a. state of NCT DelhiT; K' Jagad.ish u, tld.aya Kumar G.S8; Sau Kamal shiuolii Pokarekar u' state of Karnoltotkas; chelakolmojrithi venkatesuta:rlu a' state of Andhra Pra:.deshlo- ' Having considered the respective contentions and perused 6. the record, [he case of petitioners, precisely, is that they are the lawful owner and :ossessor oL the subject land, having purchased it through registered srile deeds and securecl mutation in revenue records, and also in continuous possession for over t\,vo decades; and that the dispute raised by ilespondent No.2 is purely civil in nature, therefore the criminal co:nplaint has been filed with mala ftde tntent, to harass and ' zo2s LIVE L,\w (sc) 758 6 2o2s LIVE L.\w (sc) 712 'Lt-2o2r (sc) 154 *crl.A.No.s6 of 2o2o dated 10.l.2a2o ocrt.A.No.25s of 2oi9 dated 12.2.2019 'n"lt't No.10892 of 2019 dated 3t.7.2019 6 extort money, and even if the allegations are taken at face value, no n criminal offence is made out, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

7. on the other hand, thc- case of Responclent No.2, precisely, is that he has clear and prior title to the property through registered plot sales made pursuant to a (iram Panchayat-approved layout during 1987-1989. He denies petitioners' title and alleges that petitioners and others fabricated documents to usurp the lancl of poor plot owners; and that the revenue entries being claimed by petitioners do not confer title on petitioners, and that no land remained w'ith the original owners of the plots, to be solcl to petitioners, and therefore, 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 the petitioner on 30.1O.2021, therefore, the criminal complaint was bona fide, as the complaint was made after police inaction and that the offences alleged require a critninal trial. In view of the background of respective cases, the coutention 8. of learned Senior counsel for petitioners (by relying on Vo;nkina Chamundes1a11argino:th a. The S.ILO., Nagarannpalem L&O P.S., Gunturlll that 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 2'{ respondent approaching the Court at the first instance and "1zott; I ALD(crif't' 7 filing a prirrate complaint without approaching the police shows that the complainant had approached the Court with a mala fide intention, ir; seriously r:ountered by Respondent No.2 contending that Respondent No.2 first approached Gachibowli Police regarding the incident datr:d 30. 10.2O?,1, that police refused to entertain the complaint and threatened him, and that he thereafter, approached higher police officials inclrrding the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, however his efforts did not yield result, and it is only thereafter, Respondent No.2 approached the trial Corrrt. [n 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 countenancr:d.

9. [rurther, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 made specific allegat.ions rtgainst petitioners that they have fabricated the documents of tha subjer:t propcrt5r, forcibly entered and demolished the houses and temples and the police a.lso colluded on 30.10.2021. lt is also contended, [hcse allegations even taken on the face value constitute the offences alleged ilgainst petitioner.

10. It is relevant to note, at this juncture, the inherent powers of tlris Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR, or a C.C., can be exerciser: to prevent abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to carry out the orders passed under the code. Further, the Hon'ble su1:reme court in skoda Auto volksutagen rnd.iq. priuate 8 Limited o. The State of tlttar Pra.deshr2, categorically held that the t\; High Court has to exercise its inherent powers uncler Section 482 Cr.P.C. in rarest of rare cascs and thc said po\l.rer has to be exercised sparingl-1' ancl lvith ci rcumspt:ction'

11. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel seeks permission to raise all the contentions available to petitioners as per law, before the trial Court. Considering the submission made, this Court grants liberty I , to petitioners to raise all the contentions available to him as per law, before the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

13. To,

1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally' 2. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Rangareddy District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI P SRI RAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI ASHFAQ AHMED, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies NVB/PSL Y\-' ''(ze2o) 10 scc 281 HIGH COURT DATED",17 t12t2025 ORDER CRLP.f\1o.6370 ot 2025 t { IE SIA t ?t JAtl 2026 * 'rrl, t \ a CLOSIhIG THE CRIMINAL PETITION q% ,f .t,'lili:-:, . i.:.i!z*:.ir:.