High Court · 2025

Petition undcr Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therein. the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C- No. l6l202i on the llle o1' the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, Peddapalli District; IA NO: I OF 2023: Petition undcr Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition, the IIigh Court ma\ be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners in (1.C. No.l612023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, Peddapalti District. pending disposal of Crl.P. No.6332 of 2023, on the file of the High Court. 'fhe petition coming on Ibr hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds hled therein, and upon hearing thc arguments of Sri P.Animi Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner. and Smt. S.Madhavi, Asst. Public Prosecutor, for Respondent No.l, the Court inade thc following. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6332 ot 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sultanabad, Peddapalli District, arising out of Crime No.'145 of 2022 of Pothkapalli police Station, peddapalli District, registered for the offences undel Sections 420,447,427.290 and 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian penal Code (for short ,lpC,).

2. Heard Mr. P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and tttlrs. s.Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state. Notice sent to respondent No.2-de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. Refusal of notice amounts to proper service of notice. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant and the petitioners are from the same village. On '1 5.05.2005, the de facto comprainant and five others purcha sed Ac.o.2/z guntas (hereinafter referred to as 'pathway') from one Budde Malramma for using the same as a pathway to their agricurtural fields and developed a clay road on it. ln 201.1 , the petitioners allegedly got the said land 2 -! registered in their names by cheating lhe de facto complainant, three witnesses i.e., LWs.'1 1 to 13 namely M.Rajesham, T.Rajaiah and A.Rajesham, and the revenue officials. On 19.12.2020, when the de facto complainant and two others were using the pathway, the petitioners allegedly stopped and abused them, claiming ownership of the said pathway. On the night of 21 .12.2020, the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land of the de facfo complainant, damaged the pathway using a tractor, and filled agricultural well with mud, causing an estimated loss of Rs.70,000/-. Again, on 23.01 .2022, the de facto complainant and two others were allegedly threatened by the petitioners to run them over with a tractor and abused in filthy language, which led to the filing of present complaint. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.145 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No .16 o'f 2023 for the aforesaid offences,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have nothing to do with the offences alleged. The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.2.29 guntas in Sy.No.645 situated at Odela Village sivar and lVlandal, Peddapalli District, having purchased the same from LW-2/ r' 3 G.Shankaraiah and one B.Ramaiah. when the de facto comprainant and others are interfering with their possession, the petitioners filed a civil suit against them vrde o.s.No.23'r of 2022 and the court of Judicial l\Iagistrate of First class at Sultanabad has granted ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners on 30.1 1.2022. He further submits that though the alleged date of incident had occurred on 23 01 .2022. the present complaint was lodged on 01.11.2022i.e , with a delay of more than nine months and the reason for such deray remained unexprained. rn fact, the alleged incident had not at ail occurred. since the petitioners are the owners of said pathway, the question of petitioners trespassing into their own pathway and committing mischief damaging the property does not arise. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5' on the other hand, the learned Assistant pubric prosecutor contended that there are specific ailegations against the petitioners. Ail the allegations levefled in the compraint as wefi as in the charge sheet are subject matter of triar, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 4

6. The record discloses that the petitioners and the de facto complainant belong to the same village and there are ongoing disputes between them with regard to pathway. There are claims and counter claims in respect of the pathway. The said disputes are purely civil in nature. As seen from the complaint, the incidents occurred on different dates i.e., 19.12.2020, 2'l .12.2020, and 23.01 .2022 were narrated. However, the present complaint was lodged on 01.11.2022. The reason for such an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint was not explained by the de facto complainant, which creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of the prepent complaint, when an ad interim injunction order is subsisting in favour of the petitioners. lf the incidents, as alleged by the de facto complainant, had genuinely occurred, it is highly improbable for him to stay silent without lodging any complaint at the earliest.

7. Apart from that, the prosecution has not produced any material evidence or photographs to establish that the de facto complainant is the owner and possessor of the pathway, or to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners have trespassed into de facto complainant's land and committed mischief causing damage to a tune of Rs.70,000/-. lf truly there was a dispute over the ownership of the pathway or any unauthorized occupation by the petitioners, the de facto complainant I 5 would have initiated appropriate revenue proceedings or filed a civil suit against them. However, no such legal action appears to have been taken by the de facfo complainant, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. lnstead of pursuing civil remedies, the de faclo complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners herein, colouring a civil dispute into criminal offence

8. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to sheer abuse of proctiss of the law and the same are liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.l to 3 in C.C.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sultanabad, Peddapalli District Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// I r Sdr MOHD. ISMAIL DY. REGISTRAR ',ispcttoN oFFICER oT I . The Judicial Magistrale of First Class, Sultanabad, Pedd#lli Olst1i9t 2. The Station Houie Officer, Pothkapatti Police Station, Peddapalli District' 3.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateof'lelangana,atHyderabad . (ou l)

4. One CC to Sri P.Animi Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies 6. One spare coPY HIGT{ COURT JSJ,J DA'I'E: ll-07-2025 ORI)ER CRL.P. NO. 6332 0F 202-l 1I{E SIA ( 2 ( JUr_ 2025 .J ) , t ( ,] )C.x { + CzuMINAL PETTTION AI,LO\VED a''t