Shri Appala Narender v. The State of Telangana

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri lvlir lVlukarram Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner and lt/lr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri V.T. Kalyan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMIN AL PETITION No.7308 of 2020 DAT E OF ORDER:-27.O1.2026 Between: Shri Appala Narender AND . Petitioner/Accused No.3 The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another. . . . Respondents ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.B90 of 2O2O, on the file of the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendernagar, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 387, 447,323 and 506 read with 34 of lPC.

#2. Heard Sri Mir Mukarram Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3, Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.'l- 2 ETD,,I Crl.P.No.7308 of 2020 State and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

#3. The case of prosecution is that on 19.10.20'19 at 5:00 P.M, the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the land of defacto complainant, abused and threatened him and others present there, further beat them and demanded an amount of Rs.50,00,000i- to leave the land.

#4. Learned petitioner's counsel submits that the allegations against the petitioner herein, who is an Advocate, are utterly false and that he would only protect the interest of his client, but for that he has no intention of threatening the defacto complainant or any other persons on the site. He further submitted that even if the petitioner had gone to the subject land that would be only to protect the interest of his client but for no other purpose. He further submitted that almost five cases are flled against the petitioner and other family members with the similar set of allegations and that all are pending for trial. There are no direct averments against this petitioner but for the alleged presence of the petitioner. He further submitted that even the statements of independent witnesses does not disclose any particular offence against the petitioner herein. He relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in P.Velumani Vs. 3 ETD,] Crl.P.No.7308 of 2020 The State represented through the lnspector of Policel and therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

#5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submifted that the prosecution is not concerned with the civil disputes pending among the parties. The petitioner herein is an Advocate but the prosecution could examine the statements of eye witnesses who are listed as LWs 2 to 4 which speak about the involvement of the petitioner herein in the alleged offence and that the said statements need to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

#6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facfo complainant has submitted that the defacto complainant is the owner of the subject land and that his land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying Outer Ring Road and that the defacto complainant has also received compensation for the same. lt is specifically alleged that the petitioner came along with others to the site just to threaten the defacto complainant and that the offence is specifically made out against the petitioner herein. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. I ' crt.o.e.1uo1r,ro.36s: of 2019& crt.M.p.(Mo)No.2109 of 2019 ,l 4

1.- ETD,] Crl.P.No.7308 of 2020

#7. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of charge sheet point out the allegations for the offences under Sections under Sections 387 , 447, 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioner herein. lt is alleged that the petitioner went along with the other accused to the subject property, abused and threatened the defacto complainant and others present there to vacate the land and it is further alleged that he has demanded an amount of Rs.50,00,0001 to leave the land. LWs 2 to 4 are listed as eye witnesses. The statements of the said witnesses point out that when they were working along with the defacto complainant in the said land at around 5:00 PM on 19.10.2019, some of the villagers of Narsingi, including the petitioner herein, trespassed into the land, quarreled with the defacto complainant, beat them with hands. Thus, the statements of these witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the allegations and the statements of witnesses do not point out the offence of extortion. The truth or otherwise in the allegations and the veracity of the witnesses can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the criminal pEtition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the Triai Court unless his presence is specifically required by the Trial Couft and provided he is represented through his counsel. 5 EID,J Crl.P.No.7308 of 2020

#8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner/accused No.3 before the Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial- Since the present CC pertains lo 2O2O, in view of the Circular instructions issued by the High Court time and again reiterating and emphasizing to prioritize disposal of matters pending for more than 5 years, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. I Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t_>" SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1 2 3 4 5 6 I)r,lrSI. The XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendra Nagar, Cyberabad. The Station House Officer, Narsingi police Station, Cyberabad. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri. Mir Mukarram Ati, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to Sri. V.T Katyan, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies Yr HIGH COURT DATED: 2710112026 Tr.{€ 5 tr" )i:, Y. i) * ? 3 FE| 20116 * ORDER GRLP.No.7308 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE CRL.PETITION (), .4"L .k*"