The Hon'ble Apex Court in llrmila Devi v. Balramt, referring to its earlier judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v

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 grant stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.32512020 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble XXI lrletropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Rachakonda, Medchal District for the alleged offences under sections 447 and 427 of IPC including appearance and trail against the petitioners alone, in the interest of Justice, 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 Mr. S. Ramesh, representing Mr. P. Shashi Kiran, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Mr. N. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant 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 SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIV/TI'i RAO CRIMI NAL PETITION No.706l of 2Oi.! ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking tr quash the proceedings in C.C.No.325 of 2020 on the lile ol the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Rachakonda, Medch rl District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 3, for the off-ences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 t I thc Irrdian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC').

2. The case o1'the prosecution in brief is that, orr ( i.10.1017, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint statin r thar- the Government orvns land to an extent of Ac. 8.20 gts. silu rted within the limits of Dammaiguda Village, in Sy.No.55l, and t te accused persons had illegally raised RCC roofed houses, each 1) an cxtent of974 sq. yards, and grabbed the said Government lantl Basing on the said complaint, the present crime was registered.

3. Heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel, I'prescnting Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, leamed counsel for the petitr rners. and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public f r rsecutor for respondent No. I 2 4- Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not conrmitted any offence and have been falsely implicated in C.C.No.325 of 2020. He lurther submitted that petitioner No. I purchased property to an extent of I14.0 sq.yards through a registered sale deed dated 24.10.2012, vide document No.6493 of 2012, from the rightfut owner. Similarly, petitioner No.2 purchased property to an extent of 208.0 sq.yards through a registered sale deed vtde document No.3300 of 2013, from the rightful owner, by paying valuable sale consideration. He further submitted that the respective Gram Panchayat had sanctioned and approved a layout about twenty years ago. Pursuant to the said layout, land to an extent ol Ac.8.20 gts was converted into residential plots. The vendors of the petitioners had obtained building permissions from the respective Gram Panchayats on

20.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners constructed houses and have been residing therein. They have also been paying property tax to the respective Gram Panchayats and are now paying it to the Dammaiguda Municipality. He further submitted that the revenue authorities have not initiated. any proceedings under the provisions of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, or under any other law.'fhe entire allegations levellcd against the petitioners are ,/ 3 purely civil in nature, and the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 IPC are not attracted. Hence, the continuation ol criminal proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. On the other hand, the leamed Assistant Public )rosecutor submitted that the petitioners, without having any mann( r ol'right, encroached upon the Govemment land, occupied the ;ame, and raised constructions. There are specific allegations a tain st petitioners in the complaint as well as in the charge slrt -'t ancl the grounds raised by the leamed counsel for the petitioners, rave lo be adjudicated during the course of trial, and therefore, thc retirioners are not entitled to seek quashment ofthe proceedings

6. l{aving considered the rival submissions mirt r-: fry ths respective parties and after perusal of the material :.r rilable on record, it reveals that the petitioners are claiming riglir , over the property to an extent of 114.0 sq.yards and 208 () sq.yrrrds, respectively, based upon registered sale deeds bearing'r rs.(r4!)3 of 20 ll and 330() of 2013. The record further disclor;e , that the respective Granr Panchayats granted building permission r in l'avour of the vendors ofthe petitioners. ,- r-*! 4

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have constructed houses, and the respective Gram Panchayats allotted H.Nos.6-32ll/58 and 6-32/1/56. The petitioners' names were mutated in the Gram Panchayat records, and they are now paying property tax to the municipality. Hence, they are bonafide purchasers.

8. Upon perusal of the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, it reveals that the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners in respect of the property is purely civil in nature

9. tt is the specific case of the petitioners that respondent No.2lde-facto complainant or the revenue authorities have not initiated any proceedings under the provisions of the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, or under any other law, on the other hand, lodged a complaint. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 IPC are not attracted against the petitioners.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in llrmila Devi v. Balramt, referring to its earlier judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. ' 2025 SCC Online SC I574 5 Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre2, reiterated that tl e crirninal process should not be misused for any ulterior or obli q re purpose. lt was observed that Courts should quash criminal lroceedings where the Iikelihood of conviction is minimal . nd rvhere continuing prosecution would serve no meaningful purrose. After examining the facts and precedents, the Court found tl at none of the allc'ged ofJ'enccs were actually made out againsr tl e accused. The case u,as identified as one among many instanc ,s w,herc a purell civil dispute was being presented as a crirninal natter. l'he complaint had becn pending for more than twenty ye jrs. and its continuation would only result in unnecessary hardshiJ . Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ,,fadhtvrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Slale of Haryana v. Bh jan Lal particularly sub-paragraphs l, 3, 5 and 7 of paragrirlh l0?., the Court held thar it was just and proper to quash the pro :eedings in the intcrest olj ustice For the lbregoing reasons as well as the principle. laid down by tlie l{on'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supr.r this Court is of the considered view that the continuation ol' lroceedings - (1988) r S( C 6ql I lqgl SrJpp ( l) St ( :li: \ I \ t 6 against the petitioners/accused Nos. I and 3 in C.C.No.325 of 2O2O on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Rachakonda, Medchal District, is clear abuse of the process of law. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that the said proceedings are liable to be quasheC, and accordingly quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER The XXI fVletropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Rachakonda, I\/edchal District The Station House Officer, Jawaharnagar police Station, Rachakonda District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to [r/r. P. Shashi Kiran, Advocate tOpUC] Two CD Copies I To, 1 2 3 4 I w HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 ,//' . 1,, -' /i'.-' ,, :..: tl :. :-: -_ -:: :=-.. .: - r.'ri:- l -':-.. r!:.'l ; .i'-, ' ,lli l t-t'r ' '.:... -t 1 ORDER CRLP.No.7061 of 2020 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION l, \r