High Court · 2025

-'nted by Public Prosecutor' High Court of Hntnff t3lii,H1", ?5111?*? [ii3'?t't:3:l'€'#''il:3i'"****' Ranga ReddY District' ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P C p'3ylng that in the circumstances peiition' the High court may be stated in the Memorand"""; ;'";rio.t Ii ct "'r pleased to quash the F'l R Li dr.iJ"n-ti u ao ot zozzon the file of P S Meerpet' l.A. NO: 10F 2022 petition under Section :13:'.U,'i:,ff :i !ill:T ;'';Iii " iiiteeroet including tn" "'"!i?in"'ittition"tt' P;t,t,;", in the interest of iustice' J,11^:1. ![ 3..:,, [1'J::','tli:# li; c'i'e No 5 B0/2 022 on pendins disposal " g' -i circumstances h Court may be the file of P.S' of the Criminal This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition anO upon hearing the- arguments of Sri SRINIVAS PENDOTA, Advocate fot t'" pttitioner and Smt S Madhavi' the Assistant Public prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No-1 and none appeared for the ResPondent No.2- The Court made the following: ORDER :Ia.JE {-! THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI cRt MI NAL P ETITIO NN o.620 8of2022 ORD ER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No212 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District 02 Heard tVl/s Srinivas pendota, Iearned counsel for the petitioner-accused No 2 and Smt.S.tVladhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. perused the record 03. The case of the prosecution as per defacto complainant in brief was that the accused approached the respondent No.2_complainant and demanded her to sell the house property to them at cheaper rate and when the complainant denied to sell the said house propefty, the accused deveroped grudge against the comprainant and hatched out a plan to grab the house of the complainant by illegal means. On 1 1.03.2022, the accused tried to occupy 2 a the house of the complainant and she resisted the attempts of the accused. On 12'03'2022, the accused A1 and A2 came to the house property of the complainant along with 10 to 15 persons, created panic, scolded the complainant in filthy language by using un-parliamentary language' pelted stones on the complainant and threatened the complainant withdireconsequences.Thecomplainantapproachedthe police, but as no action was initiated by them' filed a private complaint which was referred to the police and registered as crime No.580 of 2022 for the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 384' 389' 427' 447' 452' 5O4' 506, 509 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and sections 3 and 10(i) (3) of the SC' ST (Prevention of Atrocities (for short'POA"), Act' o4 Learned counsel for the petitioner No 2 submitted that the Petitioner was innocent of the above allegations' He had nothing to do with the said allegations made against him' The petitioner purchased the property five years prior to the respondent No.2-complainant and an injunction order was in theirfavour'TherespondentNo.2wastryingtoconverta civil dispute into a criminal dispute, which was an abuse of @k-.,ry 3 process of law. The complainant having suffered a decree in O S.No.1610 of 2003 passed by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and after filing Execution proceedings against the Judgment Debtor, wherein the complainant was also added as a party JDR in the said Ep tried to interfere with the property of the petitioners The petitioners resisted the complainant. She lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the police registered the same without even making a preliminary enquiry into the matter and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others i, wherein it was held that a criminal proceeding which was manifesfly attempted with a malafide intention or instituted with a malicious intention for wrecking vengeance against the accused was not maintainable

05. He further submitted that the complainant was in the habit of lodging false complaints against the accused. She also lodged a compraint, which was registered as case No.29-ACp_ VPRM/RCKDt2OlB_19, dated 07.09.2019, which was pending ' atR tsgz sc 60,1 4 adjudication. She was misusing the SC & ST (POA) Act' 20'15 and making the said Act as a tool to harass the petitioner. He furthersubmittedthatthecaseagainstpetitioner-Alisquashed by this Court and the petitioner-A2 also stand on the same footing and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A2 in S.C.No.212 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for SC' ST RangareddY (Prevention of Atrocities Act) at L B.Nagar District

06. Learned counsel for the respondent No 2- complainant contended that the petitioner and others being realtors doing real estate business' used to purchase the plots, flats, houses and lands at cheap rates They approached the respondent No 2 and demanded to sell her house to them. When the respondent No'2 denied the same' they developed grudge against the respondent No 2 and hatched a plan to grab her house and accordingly trespassed into her house, abused her in the name of caste and created a panic situation' The suit in O S'No 1610 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge' Ranga Reddy District was not applicable to the respondent No 2' as the respondent No.2 was not a party to the said proceedings' /.: ,,, ,/. 5 The EP was also not applicable against respondent No.2 as she was not a party to the said suit. pendency of a civil suit was not a ground to quash the criminal case against the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition 07 Learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State also supported the contentions of learned counsel for the respondent No 2-comprainant and contended that the petition could not be quashed at this stage 08 As seen from the record, both the petitioner_A2 and the respondent No.2_complainant were alleging that they were the absolute owners and possessors in respect of plot No.20 admeasuring 267 square yards in Survey No.4 situated at Dawood Khan Guda village, Balapur Revenue IMandal (Old Saroornagar), Ranga Reddy District under Badangpet Nagara panchayat The petitioner was alleging that he purchased the said property from his vendors Smt F.K.Uma Bai and others, who were legal heirs of late Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna through registered sale agreement cum General power of Attorney with possession vide document No 16.156 of 2012 dated 14 12.2012 in the 6 office of the Sub-Registrar' L'B Nagar' Ranga Reddy District for a valuable sale consideration

09. As per petitioner' one R Ail Reddy' S/o Muthyam Reddy was the GPA holder of vendor Rallagudem Ram Reddy, S/o Chenna Reddy and after the purchaser Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna died intestate on 08 05'2009' his widow and children, i e the vendors of the petitioner had succeededtotheestateandtheyinturnsoldthepropertyto them under a valid document and they were in peaceful possession and enloyment of the sanre When the said GPA holder R.Ail Reddy tried to interfere with the possession of Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna' the latter instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.1610 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge' East and North, Ranga Reddy District' Saroornagar seeking for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed as prayed for in the year 2008 and the same was still in force' Having failed in the legal battle' R Ail Reddy taking advantage of the GPA in his favour' alienated the same property to one Smt'Kalavathi and she in turn sold to Rafiq Rahman, who in collusion with R Ail Reddy sold to Pochamma and who in turn sold to Karuna and subsequently 7 the said Karuna sold to Smt.R Sujatha (the respondent No 2 herein) and her husband lV.Shankar Naik, got executed the sale deed registered as document No.13321 of 2012 dated 13 11 2012 (chain link transactions)

10. As per the contentron of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 was trying to stake claim in and over the property and was adopting illegal methods including threatening and coercing him and the co_owner A Mahesh Goud. It was furlher contended that on 1201 2O1g at 10.00 AM, the respondent No 2 trespassed into their property and threatened the petitroners, due to which they lodged a report before SHO, lVleerpet, but the same was closed by the polce as civil in nature. But the police registered a case vide crime No 29 of ZOlg for the offences under section s 44T, 4ZT and 506 of rPc on the report given by the respondent No 2 under the influence of Assistant Commissioner of police, L B.Nagar

11. The petitioner was contending that they were in possession of the property for more than two decades and that they were also protected by an order of injunction granted by a 8 competent civil court in the year 2003 ' which was still in operation. Their contention was that they constructed two rooms in the property and also engaged a watchman who was residing in the said property The respondent No 2-complainant was making an attempt to throw out the said watchman and to occupy the said property under the guise of threat of an action under SC- ST Act

12. As seen from the complaint' the complainant purchased the said property from A Karuna vide registered sale deed document No 1332'1 of 2017 on 13'112017 and shewasinpossessionofthesaidpropertysincethenand she constructed a house vide Door No 29-1-20' Badangpet' RMR colony by obtaining permission from the concerned IVlunicipal Authorities and her name was incorporated in the municiPal records

13. Thus, the dispute appears to be civil in nature' Fromthematerialonrecord,itappearsthatacivildisputeis converted into a criminal dispute and the provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act' 1989 are also incorporated. lt was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant filed O'S No'635 of I 9 2022 on the file of the Vl Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L. B. Nagar seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioners. But, she failed to state about the allegations made in the criminal complaint in the ! said suit. As the initiation of the criminal proceedings for the offences under section SC & ST (pOA) Act is nothrng but an abuse of process of law and the respondent No 2_ complainant had converted a civil dispute into criminal proceedings, the same deserves to be quashed.

14. This Criminal petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in S.C.No 212 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST (prevention of Atrocities Act) at L B.Nagar, Rangareddy District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending mrscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed I \ oT /ffRUE COPYII SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECT fur. FFICER

1. The XXVIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Rachakonda at LB Nagar 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Meerpet, Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRl. SRINIVAS PENDOTA Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies (A- TPK/sh HIGH COURT DATED: 11l0Gt2OZs ({ -I trE S r)i o( J I ,., 1 5 sEP 2025 i, f- \ I .i ,/ .-y' ';v ORDER CRLP.No.6208 ot 2OZ2 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED Pt- Ig 6 u)