The High Court · 2025

Manga Srinrvas, S/0. Manga Komraiah, Age 44 years. Oc ;. Pvt. Employee, H.No.3-106 113/914 Plot No.13, Ground Floor, Ram Red. / Nagar, Road No.1, Boduppal. It4edcha' Malkajgiri. ...Respondent No.2/Respondent No.2/t),facto-Com plainant 1 Suresh Productions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Sri. Daggubati Sr Daggubati Ramanaidu, Age 66 years, Occ. Busrne 2921821 Jl 1 1 1 /6, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033

2. Suresh Productions Rep. by its Managing Director, Rarr H.No B-2-292182lJ/lIl/ 6, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-50003 3 3. Daggubati Rajeshwari, W/o.Late Daggubati Ramanaidr, Business, R/ o. H.No.8-2-2921 821J41116, Jubilee Hills, ll 4. Daggubati Suresh Babu, S/o.Late Daggubati Ramanardr.l Business, R/o. H. No.8-2-2921821J|l'1116, Jubilee Hills, Hyc 5. Daggubati Venkatesh S/ o.Late Daggubati Ramanaidu Cine Actor, Rlo. 6-77 -2, Anahatha Road No.2, Lalamma ( Manikonda, Rangareddy District, Pin-500089 'esh Babu, S/0. Late ;s, R/o. H.No.8-2- rnaidu Studios, R/o. age 78 years, Occ. ,derabad-500033 Age 66 years, Occ. 3rabad-500033 Age 63 Years, Occ. iardens, Dollor Hills, .Petitioners/ Petitioners/ \ccused Nos.'l to 5

6. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High ( .ourt Buildings, Hyderabad through S.H.O, Police Station, Gachibowli. .Respondent No.1/ Respondent No.'t /Com plainant Petition under Sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in the r;j cumstances stated in the affidavit the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granting stay all further proceedings of the trial court includir ( the appearance of the petitioner in CC SR.NO 6590 of 2024 vide orders dated C: 1O712025 passed in lA.No.'1 of 2025 in Criminal Petition. 336 of 2025. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Raghuram, Advocate, 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 L IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF 1'- )LANGANA HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEIVI, \PAKA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6336 OF 2(25 L7.L2.2025 Between: Suresh Procluctions F\'t. Ltcl. , Rcp. bv Sri Daggubati Surcsh Rabu & lour others AND The State of Telang:rna, Rep. b-t, Pr-rl;lic Prosecutor & another ORDER: I)e t itron er Respondents Petilior-rer col'npany clairns to be the : rvful owner and possessor of Acs. 7.213 grrntas of lar-rd in Sy. No. 2.) 7 /A of Gopanpally Village, SerilingampaJlv Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dis trict, having purchased the same through four registered sale d( r d s liom the true and larvful owncrs, ancl has been in continuorl; possession and enjoyment ever sntce, ',vith its title cluly mutated in tlr: revenue records in 2OO2 under the R.O.R. Act. Prior to purchase, pet 1 ioners conducted due diligence by obtaining legal opinion and issuing 1,r Lblic notices, and having received no objections, claim to be bona firi: purchasers for 2 valuable consideration. Petitioners further rely on the Gazette notification dated 16.O4.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which itself acknowledges petitioners' title and possessi.on, and on disposal of Writ Pctition No. 10163 of 2005 directing acquisition only by due process of law- It is contended that Rcspondent No.2, who was never in possession of the land, has subsequently filed CCSR No. 6590 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 continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, and therefore, prays to quash CC(SR).No.6590 of 2024 on the fi1e of learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 322, 324(51, 329(41, 335, 336(3),339, 6 1 (2) and Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2O23. 2, Heard Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P. Sri Ram, learned couhsel 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. Bhaian LoIr, contends that the present criminai proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS). He submits that although regrstration of an FIR is mandatory in cases disclosing cognizable '1tooz; srpp (l) scc 33s 3 offences as held n Lalitq Kumari a. State of U.P.2 lhe dispute in the present case is purely civil in nature and criminal la,' is being misused i to exert pr€sslrro on petitioncrs, rvhich is imperrnL sibler, as held in Anukul Singh u. State of U.P.3.lt is argrctl that Rr: ponrlent No.2 has failed to disclosc the commission of any cogniz:rble ollr n ce or explain thc inordinate dela,v in loclging the private complaint, clc r r lv indicating mala fdes, espccialh' rr.r view of the pending civil Iiti61:,1 mandatory proccrlnrc prcsr:ribecl in Priganka Sriva: on. Further, the tau@ u. State of U.Pa. rvas not lollou,ed, as no ltroof rvas producerl o show that tlte complaint was ti-st taken to l-righer police authoriti s q,hen FIR r',,as allegedly not registered. It is also contended that Rr':; ronclent No.2 had already availed a crvil remedy against the very sanrr. set of allegations against the same persons, as such he ought not to hrr 'r: maintained the private complaint as the element of criminality is r r rsent, hence, the same is liable to be quashecl. It is contended that tlrt, I .zrrned Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction it-r accordance with lir.i . contrary to the principles laid dorvn in S.N. Vijayalakshmi u. Stat : of Karaotaka, wherein it was hcld as follor,vs: " The ob|iotts caueat bainlt thet the qllcgations a , civil Jlauour to them, must pima facie disclose qn ouerulti. of ciminahty. ln thc absence of the element of criminatity. I ciminal cqses are ellowed to conlinuc, it utill <lc.finitely at,t of the process oJ'the Coufi, whrch the Courls haue alutaq:; t bA putttng o slt)p to antl sttch cttrninal proccedtnq, uther. clt haue alreodq baen instituted uith regard lo the samc -, rr if lnuing a nting element both ciuil and ,unt to 7buse .d to preucnt I proceedings ;rrc, ond thc lzoray z scc r r(Crl.Appeal No. nlzotsy o scc ztz 425(.) ot 20251 4 eletnent of ciminaLitA is cLb:;etlt. If such element is absen| the prosecution in question utouLd haue to be quashecL. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra u. State of Uttarakhetlcl 12013) 1 1 SCC 673 cart be refered to: "12. Whelher a contplaint discloses a cnmtnal olfence or not rlepends upon the natttrc tt facts r leged therein. Whether essential inqreclients of criminal offenct- are present or not lLC.s to be judged bA the Higlt Court A canLplaint clisclosing citil transucttons mag aLso haue: ct criminal tcxture. Rut the H1ql1 (:o1ol must see whether a drspute which is essentially of a ciuil natLtrc B cltuert a cloak of ciminal offence. In such a situotton, if a cruit remeclg is auailable and is, tn fact, ad.opted as has happened in this case, the Hqh CoLtrt shouLd not hesitate to qltosh the, cimtnal proceerlLnqs to pret.4lt1t abuse of process of the CoLLrt."

4. Mr. Palle Nageshrvar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State contends that the complaint contains specific allegations attracting the offences alleged against petitioners and, since petitioners have alreacly entered appearance and the matter is pending adjudication through a fu1l fle<.lged 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 registcred plot sales made pursuant to an approved Gram Panchayat layout dunng 1987 19a9, leaving no land available for petitioners' alleged vendors to sell in 20O1, and that petitioners and others, in colluslon with police officials, fabricated documents to illegally usurp the property of poor plot owners. He alleges that on 30.lO.2O2l, petitioners, with police protection, forcibly entered the existing residential colony using heavy machinery and demolished houses anti 1 :mples, rendering several families homeless, thereby committing cogniz i rle offences under the Bharatiya N1,aya Sanhita, 2023. Respondent I io.2 asserts that revenue entries do not confer title, denies petitioners , laim of purchase, and contends that the criminal complaint rvas filed o r l-y after the police failed to act on his complair-rt despite documentary u oof. According to him, the criminal proceedings are bono ftie, disclos-- serious offences, and the judgments relied upon by petitioners do not a r cly, and therefore the Criminal Petition deserwes to be dismissed. Resp( nclent No.2 relies on S.N. Vijagalakshmi u. State of Karnatakas Kathga.gint a. Sidharath P.S.Redd.ga; Priti Saraf u. State o.1' NCT DelhiT; K. Jagadish u. Udayq Kumar G.S8,. Scu Kanal Shi,t tji Pokarekar a. State of Karnatakae; Chela-kq.marithi Venkq.tesu.t LrIu a. State of Andhra Pradeshlo.

6. Having considered the respective contell i rns and perused the record, the case of petitioners, precisely, is that tt ey are the lawful owner and possessor of the subject land, having prrrc hased it through registered sale deed s and secured mutation in revenLrr records, and also in continuous possession for over two decades; anc that the dispute raised by Respondent No.2 is purely civil in natrL c, therefore the criminal complaint has been filed with malo fi.de intct t, to harass and 5 2o2s tla LAw lsc) 758 " 2025 LIVE LAW {SC) 712 1LL 2o2t (sc) 1 s4 tcrl.A.No.56 of 2o2o dated 10.t.2o2o ecrl.A.No.25s of 20l9 dated t2.2.2olg rocrl.A.No. 10892 of 2019 dated 31.7.2ot9 6 extort money, and even if the ailegations 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, thc cerse 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 Par-rchayat approved layou t during 1987-19a9. He denres petitroncrs' title and alleges that petitioners and others fabricated documents to usurp the land of poor plot owners, and that the revenue entries being claimed by petitroners do not confer title on petrtioners, and that no land remained with the original owners of the plots, to be sold 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 collucled rvith the petitioner on 30. 1 O.2O2 1 , therefore, the criminal complaint was bond fde, 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 learned Senior counsel for petitioncrs (by relying on Vankina Chamundeswdrdtudth v. The S..[I.O., Nagarampalem LELO P.5., Gunturll)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, howewer, the 2"d respondent approaching the Court at the first instance and "(zot t) t a.Ln (cri) t l filing a private complaint without approaching t re police shows that the complainant had approached the Court ' rith a mala fide intention, is seriously countered by Respondent No I contctrding that Rcspondent No.2 first approached Gachibowli Poli c regarcling the incident dated 30. 1O.2O2 1 , that policc refused to enter I ein the complaint and threatened him, and that he the reafter, approa r red higher police ofhcials including the Commissioner of Police, Cybe'r: cad, hou.evcr his efforts did not yield result, and it is only thereafter. Respondent No.2 approached the trial Court. In vierv of the specihc rebL ttal contention of Respondent No.2 asserting the reasons for his appr raching the trial Court, the contention of learned Senior Cor r sel cannot be countenanced.

9. Further, learned counsel for Respondent 11,,. 2 n'rade specific allegations against petitioners that they have fabricat r I the documents of the subject property, forcibly entered and demolish: I the houses and temples and the police also colluded on 30.1O.2021. It j; also contended, these allegations even taken on the face value cons.i -ute the offences alleged against pet itioner.

10. It is relevant to note, at this juncture, the r herent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an , R, or a C.C., can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court, or t( secure the ends ofjustice, or to carry out the orders passed under the I tde. Further, the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Slcodc Auto Volkswage t India priuate I I j I I I i I I I I i I 8 Limtted. v. The Strrte of Uttd-r Pradeshr2, categorically held that the High Court has to cxercise its lnherent powe.6 under Section 482 Cr-P.C. in rarest of rare cases artd the said power has to be exercised sparingly ancl rvith circtrrnslrcction.

11. At this stage, Iearned Scnior Counsel seeks perntission to raise all the contentions available to pctitioners as per lav,,, belore the trial Court. Considering the submission madc, ttris Court grants liberty to. petitioners to raise all the contenlions avail:rble to him as per law, before the trial Court. Accordingly, thc (lrinrrnal Petiliorl is closed. Miscellancous pctilions pendrng, if zrny, shall stand closed. SD/- A SREENIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER L2.

13. I I l_ To, l.TheXAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClassRangreddyDistrictat 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 \q/ t1(2o20) to scc 781 HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 I ORDER CRLP.No.6336 of 2025 . , rrl-- STArt' J _) L i: 7 JAt{ 2[26 x ' F..Sp.n-it .- r:r.-- z C' .> .r): CLOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION d'lb4 Xs'