The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the entire records relating to CC No. 10213 of 2021 lrom the Court of lll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, and quash the same in the interest of .iustice. t.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 in CC No.10213 ol 2021, on the file of Court of the lll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, including the arrest of the petitioner, pending disposal of quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri tMohammad Adnan, Advocate for the Petitioner and {iri fvl.Ramachandra Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ..\ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI ORDER: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6772 ot 2O24 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.10213 ot 2021 on the file of the learned lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 448 and 427 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC',).

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. lnspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record

3. The de facto complainant, who is the Estate Officer at M/s. Power Links Providers, lodged a complaint on 29.12.2020 stating that lndus Towers Limited (formerly known as Bharathi lnfratel Limited) had lawfully occupied the H.No.8-2-674t1312, near Vijaya Bank, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, on lease basis, under a lease agreement executed on

06.02.2018, which is valid up to 05.02.2029, with the lawful owners namely Mrs. Hameeda Sultana and LW-2/Mohd. Rashid Abbas Ali. \ \ -i 2 Mobile towers were erected under leave and licence €rgreements. Owing to property disputes between LW-2 and the petitioner.:rccused No.2, the petitioner-accused No.2 threatened the de facto conrplainant to vacate the premises. Upon refusar, the petitioner-accused No.2, out of grudge, hired accused No.1. on 28.12.2020, both of them trespassed into the subject premises and accused No.1 has cut the electric cable supplying power to the telecom equipmdnt, causing disruption to the public services and loss to the Company 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the complaint. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The petitioner-accused No.2 was in the U.K. on the alleged date of incident, but not in lndia. He lasly visited lndia in 2020 and returned to u.K. on 12.10.2020. Therefore, the question of his committing the offences alleged does nrt arise. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out. Herrce, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5' On the other hand, the learned Additional llublic prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are q \r 3 subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition

6. The record discloses that there are property disputes between LW-2 and the petitioner-accused No.2, who are the own brothers and the said disputes are purely civil in nature. Although the alleged incident had occurred on 28.12.2020, the present complaint was lodged on

29.12.2020 at 19.00 hours, with no explanation provided for the delay caused. Crucially, the Photostat copies of the petitioner's passport, reflects that he has visited lndia on 05.10.2020 and left to U.K. on

12.10.2020. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner was not in lndia on the date of alleged offence and the question of his involvement in the crime does not arise.

7. The statement of LW-2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly shows although he was initially the owner of the subject premises as per the rental agreement, subsequent bifurcation of properties between himself and the petitioner-accused No.2 resulted in the subject premises falling to the share of petitioner-accused No.2. lt is further stated that in the light of the said bifurcation, the petitioner-accused No.2 would have asked the de facto complainant to vacate the subject premises, which the de facto complainant refused, and it is on account of \ \, / 4 such refusal, the petitioner-accused No.2 would llave committed the offence 8- The petitioner-accused No.2 has filed W.P.Nos 351S and Z2gZ4 of 2021 seeking relief against the lndus Towers Limiterd in relation to the unauthorized instaltation of cell tolver and related equipment on the subject premises. This court, vide order, dated 07.12.2021 directed the lndus Towers Limited to remove the cell tower as well as the equipment fixed to it, within 15 days from the date of the order. lrr the event of non- compliance by the lndus Towers Limited, the responrlent-authorities are directed to take steps to remove the cell tower, its =quipment and the subject structures from the building forthwith.

9. ln view of the categoricat admission made by L.w-2 regarding the petitioner's ownership over the subject premises anri the fact that the petitioner able to seek and obtain such relief from this Court clearly establishes his ownership and possessory rights over the subject premises and the very foundation of the allegation of hr>use trespass falls flat. lt is a well-setfled principte that a person cannot be said to have trespassed into a property of which he is the rightfurl owner or laMul possessor

10. The petitioner-accused No.2 has also approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.S0O of 2021 seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against him. This Court, by order, dated 09.02.2021 directed the petitioner to submit copies of his passport entries and other relevant documents to the lnvestigating Officer through his father-in-law, and further directed the lnvestigating Officer to consider the same and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. However, a perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the said passport entries were not taken into consideration by the lnvestigating Officer, during the course of investigation

11. Except the confession statement of accused No.1 recorded by the Police, which is inadmissible in evidence, there is no material to establish that accused No.1 acted on the instructions of petitioner-accused No.2 in cutting the cable wire. As seen from the list of witnesses, except the de facto complainant and LW-2, no other independent witness was examined. Apart from that, the prosecution has not produced any material evidence or photographs to establish that the petitioner-accused No.2 has trespassed into the subject property and committed mischief causing damage to the property. 6

12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the r;onsidered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allorn,ed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in c.c.No. 10213 of 2021 on the file of the learned lll Additionhl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, l-iyderabad. Pending miscellaneous apprications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ ,="*)'/ OFFICER To,

1. The lll Addl. chief Metroporitan Magistrate, Nampally, HyrJerabad. 2. The Station House officer, Banjara Hills police station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri. Mohammad Adnan, Advocate tOpUCl 4- Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ol Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies YIR /PSL \q'- HIGH COURT DATED:15/0 9tZ02S ORDER CRLP.No.6772 of 2024 t o () "t 17 t{8l/ 20fi i -:l '=r;-:r-.'li/ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. o,{* g k*