The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.971 of 2O2O on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings includin$ appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.971 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Gadwal, pending disposal of the Criminal petition. i This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y Koteswar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. S madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on Lrehalf of the Respondent No.1 and M/s. Poojari Srilekha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 (No representation). The Court made the following: ORDER a // // // THE Hr)N'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5274 ot 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.B seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.971 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial lVagistrate of First Class at Gadwal (for short 'trial Court'), arising out of Crime No.126 of 2020 of P.S. Dharoor, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, registered for the offences punishable under Seclion s 427 , 447 , 323 and 504 rlw . 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

2. Heard Mr. Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and tt/rs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.05.1983, the Government has allotted a housing plot bearing No.55 situated at Bheempuram Village, B.C. Colony, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, to the father of de facto complainant and patta was also given to him. However, no constructions were raised by his father. After his death, the de facto complainant, being the legal heir, acquired the same. On '16.06.2020, when the de facto complainant along with his wife went I 2 to the prot in dispute for construction of house/hut, a[ the accused in the crime have trespassed into the said prot and tried to remove cement poles. When the de facto complainant and his wife objected, all the accused abused them in filthy language and beat them with hands. Basing on the said compraint, a case in crime No.126 of 2020 was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the triar court for the aforesaid offences. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.97 1 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.B is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. There is a deray in rodging the compraint and the reason for such delay was not exprained. He further submits that the prot in dispute is 'Gramakantam' and it is being used as prayground for the rast severar years. As the de facto complainant was trying to construct hut in the Gramakantam, some of the viilagers objected for the same. As such, the present complaint was foisted by the de facto complainant against the petitioner herein and others with all false allegations. He further submits that initially, the plot in dispute was allotted to the father of de facto complainant on 14.05.1983. since the father of the de facfo complainant failed to raise constructions in the plot in dispute within three years from the date of allotment, the allotment of plot in dispute and neighbouring I .\ 3 / plots was cancelled and the same was re-allotted to High School, Bheemapuram. Presently, High School is existing in the said plot numbers. As the allotment of plot in dispute was cancelled, the de facto complainant has filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. On the basis of reports submitted by the Tahsildar, Dharoor Mandal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal and the Diskict Collector, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the Lok Ayukta has dismissed the complaint filed by the de facto complainant.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a Kabaddi player and he has participated in several tournaments. ln support of the same, he has filed photocopies of Sports Certificates/Awards. For the past five years, he is practising at Gachibowli, Hyderabad and the Sports Authority of lndia (SAl) is sponsoring him. The petitioner is almost residing in the Stadium at Hyderabad and not at Bheempuram Village, Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba-Gadwal District. With conducting proper investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet in a mechanical manner. Due to pendency of the present criminal case, the petitioner is facing problems to get passport, visa, etc. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein and the ingredients of the 4 offences alleged against him are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition

7. As seen from the record, the alleged incident had occurred on

16.06.2020, however, the present complaint was lodged on 26.08.2020 i.e., there is a delay of more than two months in lodging the complaint. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. Having gone through the record, it is evident that the plot in dispute was allotted to the father of de facto complainant on 14.05.1983. However, as his father failed to raise any constructions within three years from the date of allotment, the allotment of plot in dispute and neighbouring plots was cancelled. Thereafter, the same was re-allotted to High School, Bheemapuram. Presently, High School is existing in the said plot numbers. Questioning the cancellation of allotment of plot in question, the de facto complainant has filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. l 5

8. On the basis of said complaint, the Lok Ayukta has called for reports from the officers concerned. Basing on the reports submitted by the Tahsildar, Dharoor l\Iandal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, the District Collector, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, furnished a report to the Registrar of Lok Ayukta stating that "the plot in dispute allotted to the father of de facto complainant was cancelled as he failed to construct house within the stipulated time and a Government School was constructed in the plot in dispute, along with other plots. Thus, physically there is no house site plot bearing No.55. The de facto complainant tried to raise constructions in the Government land situated in sy.No.134 of Bheempuram Village, Dharoor tMandal, which was allotted for play ground to Government primary School. The allegations levelled against the Grampanchayat Secretary, Bheempuram, are not genuine.,, Basing on the said report, the Lok Ayukta has dismissed the compraint fired by the de facto complainant.

9. As per the compraint, the ailegation against the petitioner herein is that he, along with other accused in the crime, has trespassed into the plot in question, abused rhe de facto complainant and his wife in filthy Ianguage and also beat them with hands. rt is evident from the report submitted by the District Collector, Jogulamba_Gadwal District, to the Registrar of Lok Ayukta, that the house/hut does not at ail exist in the prot 6 in dispute. The said plot does not belong to the de facto complainant and the same is being used as play ground. Hence, the question of petitioner herein trespassing into the plot o'f de facto complainant does not arise at all.

10. lt is alleged that all the accused in the crime have abused the de facto complainant and his wife in filthy language and beat them with hands. The petitioner herein is a Kabaddi player and he is residing at Hyderabad for his practise. Upon a perusal of the contents of the complaint, it reveals that general allegations are levelled against the petitioner herein. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to the mischief, which involves any act that is intended to cause wrongful loss or damage to property; criminal trespass; voluntarily causing hurt and intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of the public place. No material was produced by the prosecution to show that the de facto complainant and his wife suffered any simple injuries due to the alleged assault made by the petitioner herein and other accused in the crime. ln the complaint, even the abusive words used by the petitioner herein and other accused, which caused breach of public peace, were not mentioned, except stating that they have abused in filthy language. The petitioner herein was not attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against him. Hence, this 7 I Court is of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein amounts to abuse of process of the law.

11. ln view of the above, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.8 in C.C.No.971 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class at Gadwal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDi. P PADMANABHA REDDY PUry REGISTRAR E:CTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gadwal 2' The station House officer, Dharoor tr/Jndar porice station, Joguramba Gadwar 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court forthe state otierang;"" "i'- 4. One CC to Sri y Koteswar Rao, Advocate tOpUCl l. 9n" 99 !o IVis poojari Sritekha, nOvocate 1OeUCl 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK 6 HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 ORDER CRLP.No.5274 of 2022 t) o L) r,r EL T.S A I€ 0 2 l{l\l ilffi I oEsprrt ALLOWING THE CRLP e)orqW