The High Court · 2025

praying that in the circumstances minal Petition, the High Court may C.C.No. 856 of 2020 on the file of rabad at Rajendranagar including to 6 in C.C.No. 856 of 2020 on the {".s--iIi€7 -, -?' file of XVI Addl. Metropolitan [tilagistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. KOKA SRINIVAS KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioners Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M. Suresh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI E E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No. 243 oF 2o2t ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed y the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 6 seeking to quash the Pr ceedings in C.C.No.856 of 2O2O on the file of the learned X I Additiohal MetroPolitan Magistrate, CYberabad at Rajendr agar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4 8, 504,506 oflPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are On 18.03.2O19 at 1O:00 hou received from Yadamani, alleging th a complaint has been S

17.O3.2OL9 at about 09:OO hours al1 of a sudden Mr'MYa ari Srinivas (Accused No.1) along with six unknown Persons rcefully entered into the cy without Prior intimation, complainant's flat at Rainbow Reside which amounts to criminal trespass g. The unknown Persons e from Police DePartment are claiming themselves that theY and were advocates and theY refuse They further abused and threatene husband in a hlthY language, witho to disclose their identitY. the comPlainant and her any reason. As such, the i ! i I i I I I i i i I ; 2 EW, J crlp 6243 2O2L complainant was worried of the situation and was in helpless condition at that point of time, as her tu,. other ,nmarried daughters residing in the same flat. Ther.eafter. ,A1 started threatening the de facto cornplainant for private settlement a,d pressurized t, give divorce with huge alimo,y t. her daughter-in- Iaw. In the said complaint, it was further stated that the son of de facto complainant i.e. husband of daughtcr of A1 filed RCR with case No. 1625/2018 in L.B.Nagar Court, which is in mediatior-r and as counter blast, FIR has trcr:n filccl with FIR No.669 ol 2018. Their famity members are compreterv tensed out of this situation and there is no security for thcm in the hands of Mr.Myadari Srinivas and daughter-in-raw. Evcn few days before filing of the complaint, Mr.Myadari Srinir.as (A1) and his associates threatened the son of the d.e far:to complainant on 07.O3.2O19 in the Court premises ald later on, they have been receiving the threatening calls claiming to be arl M.L.A and accordingly the complaint has been held, thc.eafter, the crime has been registered against Ai to 4.6 under Sections 44g. SO4 and 5O6 of IPC. l I I I 1 l I I j l i .J 3 EW' J ctlp 6243 2O2L

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused Nos. I to 6 an learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respond t No.1-State.

4. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that there are matrimon al disputes between the petitioners and the unoffrcial res ondent pertaining to the marriage of the un-official respondent s son with petitioner No.1's daughter. In this regard, a case u der Section 498-A IPC is pending, and a petition for restitutio of conjugal rights has also been liled and allowed by the learned ial court

6. Learned counsel for the Petitio rs further submits that in order to mediate and amicably settl the issues, the petitioner No. 1, accompanied by some well- shers and other accused persons, who are practicing advocat s, visited the residence of the de facto complainant. The petiti ers were neither strangers nor intruders. They were permitted e try into the house and had no intention of committing any offen e Hence, the allegation of criminal trespass is unsustainable n law and on facts. He further submits that excePt for a w interested witnesses, no 4 EW, J crlp 6243 2O2L independent witnesses such as the watchman of the apartment or other neutral persons have been examined by the investigating officer to support the claim of illegal entry or crimina,l intimidation. He further submits that the Family Court has already granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the petitioner. Whiie this is the prevarling statlrs of the matrimonial clispute, the hiing of a fa,lse and motivated complainant alleging criminal conduct against the petitioners appears to be a counterblast and an act of vengeance. In view of the above, the learned counsel prays that the continuation of crimina-l proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and seeks to quash the same in the interest of justice.

7. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent would submit that the act of the petitioner No.l, along u,ith five unknown persons/petitioner Nos.2 to 6, in entering the premises of tine de facto complainant amounts to criminal trespass. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant has alleged that the petitioners have threatened her. After coming out of the police Station, the de facto complainant filed a complaint

18.03.2019 i ! I i I i t /' & ,/ 5 EW, J erlp_6243 2O2L

8. Learned counsel further submit that the ongoing dispute I I between the petitioners and the uno cial respondent pertains to I I I l I I a family matter. However, the act of the petitioners in allegedlY trespassing into the house of the de aclo complainant certainlY warrants investigation and inquiry b the Court. As such, anY interference by this Court at this Cou t may not be justilied.

9. Per contra, the learned Assistant blic Prosecutor vehemently contended that only after completio of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet before the Court below and the truth or otherwise would be r vealed only after fuli-fledged trial. Therefore, he prays this Court to. d smiss the petition.

10. Having rega-rd to the submiss ons made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, unofficiaL spondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Co rt observes that although the alleged incident occurred on t7.

3.2019, the complaint was lodged only on 18.03.2019, after a la se of more than 24 hours, and no explanation for the delaY has been oflered in the complaint. Furthermore, the FIR itially mentioned unknown persons, but the subsequent charge sheet fails to provide any plausible explanation as to how titioner Nos.2 to 6 were 6 EW, J crlp 6243-2021 1 implicated along with A1. No material evidence has been brought on record establishing the identification of A2 to A6 by any of the witnesses framed in the complaint. Moreover, none of the material witnesses have been examined to corroborate the statement of LW. 1 recorded by the respondent - Poiice. Although the alleged incident took place in an apartment compiex, neither any neighbors were examined nor has any statement been recorded from other independent witnesses, except the watchman. Even the watchman's statement appears insufficient in establishing the identity or involvement of the petitioners 1 1. It is also pertinent to note that the CCTV footage, which was reportedly provided by the de facto complainant, was neither examined by the Investigating Officer nor subjected to forensic analysis, as no FSL report is on record. This omission on the part of the investigation is fatal to the prosecution case.

12. In the absence of cogent and credible evidence, allowing the trial to proceed against the petitioners would result in unnecessary prolongation and wastage of the vah-rable time of the trial court. Such a proceeding would be nothing short of abuse of the process of 1aw i I l; i i I I I I I ) I t I i I , e@l';:;'.*_-, -,:,:.i::.}YX../ u./ ,/ 7 EW, J ctlp_6243 2O2L

13. It is under these circumstance . this Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proce dings would amount to an abuse of process of law and hence, eserves to be quashed

14. Accordingly, the Criminal P tition is allowed and the proceedings in the said crime regist red under Sections 448,5O4 & 506 of IPC in C.C.No.856 of 2O2O on the file of the learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar arising out of Crime No.200/2019, ated 18.03.2019 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cybe abad District, afe hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pe ding in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI SSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE C PYII SECTTON OFFICER To, t d a at Ra end fanagar strate ybefa b d Th XV Ad Me ropo tan M a s e o H n ce Sta n N rS r e Sta to n HouSe office Po S KU M , Advocate [OPUC]' SR N A RES H Ad VO UTo R P RoSEC 1 t 2 Th 3. One CC to Sri. KOKA 4. One CC to Sri. M' SU 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC at HYderabad [OUT]' toPUCl. iiigrt C'ourt for the State of Telangana a d

6. Two CD CoPies TTS/kam lfr t i 6', l' L) r-\ Ti{E S 1.4 .,.+ 1( q ) c Ii'\ /<. \+ -\' 12 AIJE 2I[' HIGH COURT DATED: 0110712025 ORDER CRLP.No.6243 of 2021 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED (u l> q 2,5 q