In State of Haryana v. Bhajan LaU th

the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings CC No. 'l 165 of 2O2O on the file of the court of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Cyberabad against the petitioner/ accused . I f l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 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. 'l t65 of 2020 on the file of the court of the XXlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Cyberabad including the appearance of the petitioner/ accused, 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 AJAy KUMAR MADISETTY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri D. Linga Rao represented by Bharath sha, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5948 OF 2O2O ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed by the pe titioner/ ar:<: usr-'d under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the procer:dings in CC No. 1 165 of 2O2O on th,r file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Cybr:rabad '2. Hcarrl Sri Ajay I(unlar Medisetty, learnecl <:ounsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.l/State and Sri Bharat Shah, learned counsel reprcsenting Sri D.Linga Rao, learned coun:;el for the respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.I 2.2019 aL about 183O hours, the 2L'd respondent/de-facto cornplainant, claiming to be thr: Vice-Chairman of Indian Red Cross Societ5z, Medchal Malka.lgiri District, filed a complainant complaining that their organization was sanctioned land admeasurinSl Ac.0.19 Gnts., in Sy.No.837/4, Upparpally Village for IRCS Blood Bank & Trauma Call Centre by the then District Collector anrl District Magistrate Sri M.V.Reddy. Accordingly, while they were proceeding with the work at the said site, on 21.12.2019, one person viz. Mr.Balesh (Cell Nos.9OOO4 40999 & 9959+ 40999) Pare 2 of 6 came to the site and threatened the driver of Hitachi vehicle and forcibly stopped the work at the site, resulting in huge loss to the complainant organization. LW6 registered FIR in Crime No.52 1 of 2Ol9 for the offences under Sections 341 and 506 IPC against the petitioner and initially PW7 conducted investigation and subsequently, the investigation was handed over to PW8 and upon completion of investigation, PWB laid charge sheet which was numbered as CC No.1165 of 2O2O, pending on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Cyberabad.

4. Challenging his array as accused in thc said calendar case, the petitioner filed the prescnt criminai petition seeking his discharge mainly contending that the pahani for the year 2OL7 shows one Etala Vikas as the pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.28 Gts., in Sy.No.966 of Shameerpet Village and presently the mother of the petitioner viz. Smt. Karre Bhagzamma, W/o.Uppalaiah is in possession of the said land by cultivating vegetables and the said fact is very much evident by the Memo No.B/3051/2O18, dated 09.08.2018, issued by the Tahsildar, Shameerpet, basing on the spot enquiry report submitted by Mandal Girdawar dated 10.O7.2018. That being the case, the petitioner obstructing the complainant society from proceeding with the works in the land situated in Sy.No.g37/4 of Upparpally Pagc 3 ol6 Village or threat.ening the driver of Hitachi vehicle does not arise and the loss, if any incurred by the complainant. cannot be attributable against the petitioner. He further submits that except makinEl a vague complaint, the complainant did not submit the allotment order or work entrustment order. Further, the driver of the Hitachi vehicie is not made a witness in the charge- -\ sheet. Basing on the a6ove factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution cannot stand for legal scrutiny and continuation of tLre present proceedings is noihing but. abusc of process of law and hence, the case against the petitioner ma1,be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the land has been rightfully and authoritatively sanctioned in favour of the petitioner organization, which is a voluntarily organization with good rt-'putation, voluntarily rvorking for the wellare of the public and thelr, there is no personal intcrest involved in lodging the complaint. Further, the land cf the petitioner is situated in Shamirpet and thc prcsent dispute is with regard to the land situated in Upparpally. The charge-sheet has already been hled and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner r:an only I Page { ol6 be decided after thorough trial and rithout such exercise, the petitioner cannot be deciared as innocent

6. Taking the same stand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the charge-sheet is laid'and the trial will be commenced shortly and upon conducting thorough trial only the truth can tre elicited and hence, interference of this Court, at this stage, will not meet the ends of justice.

7. Having heard the rival contcntions of the respective counsel and having pemsed the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner organization did not produce any document in proof of allotment of the subjcct land in its favour and the driver of Hitachi vehicle, who alleged to have been threatened by the petitioner, is not examined during investigation. Further, none of the witnesses were examined to prove the aspect of the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner organization. No witnesses have deposed with regard to the allegation that the petitioners threatened the driver of Hitachi vehicle. It is apparent on record that the matter is clearly civil in nature. [n the absence of crucial witnesses to e stablish the prima-facie allegations against the petitioner, continuation of proceedings does not fructify any result. \ a m , I'lge 5 of6

8. In State of Haryana V. Bhajan LaU th€ Hon'ble Apex Court had [:rid down certain guidelines where the proceedings can be quashed, which read as under: . . Where the allegations made in the First lnforrnation Report or the complaint, even if they ar€ taken at th(]ir face value and accepted in their' entiretl, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against thc accused.

2. Where the erllegations in the First Infornation Report and other materiais, il any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not clisclose a cognizable offence, justifying an invesl igation by police officers Under Section 156(11 of the Codc c:i, ept undcr an orCer of a Magistrate within the pun,ir',.r' o[ Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the Lrncorltiovcrted allegations mad,: in the FIR or cr,mplaint and the evidence collected in support of the samc do not disclose the commission of any offence and makt out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.l.R. rlo not constitr-lte a cogniz.able offencc but constitute only a non- cogniz:rbk offence, no investigation is permitted by a police offrcer rvithout an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Un<1cr Section 155(2) ofthe Code. .5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or compl?iir-rt are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis oi rvhich no prudent person can ever reach ;r just conclusion that there is sufhcient ground for procecding against the accused.

6. Where thcle is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerne(l Act (under rvhich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings arld/or where therc is a specific provision in tl-e Code or the concerncd Act, providing efhcacious redress for the grievancr: ol the aggrieved party. ' 1992 Supp (l) sCC 135 : l992sCC(Cri)426 Pa-qc 6 oi'6

7. Where a criminal procecding is manifestly attended with mala hde and/or rvhere the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for u,reaking vengeance on the accused and $'ith a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

9. When the facts of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the proposition of la-,v laid down in the above decision, it can be safely held that the presenL case is a fit case where the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner can be quashed. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present criminal petition by quashing the impugned proceedings against the petit-ioner.

10. In the result, the present crirrrinal petition is allor.r,ed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.1165 of 2O2O on the Iile of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Cyberabad. Miscellaneous applications, if any prending, stands dismissed. dl- . PONNA KRISHNA S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 The XXlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal at Cyberabad' The Station House Officer, Shamirpet PS' Cyberabad ' One CC to SRl. AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Advocate IOPUC] one CC to SRl. D. UNGA RAO' Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the ASSISTANT PUBLIC PRoSECUToR, High Court for the State ofTelangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies TL/gh \cv HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 ?" I + 17 t[I i[x I , .i, .., i'\,1 'i ,. ' .-... .-...... ,'' ORDER CRLP.No.5948 ol 20'.20 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. q .oS"J) Xe, I I i