The High Court · 2025

.. Respo n denUCom pla ina nt Petition under section 492 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court mry be pleased to quash the c-c. No. 10g0 ot 2o2o on the fire of the Judiciar First Class Magistrate at Deverakonda. t.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the ,circumstances StatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay No 1080 of 2020 on the file of U. pf Juiicirf First Class Magistraie at Devirakonda including arrest of petitioner, pending disposal of the above criminal petition- to stay all furtnei proceedings in C ""."A .C This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt K V' Rajasree,AdvocateforthePetitionersandtheSriE.Ganes;hAssistantPublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri T'3alamohan Reddy' Advocate for the ResPondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7 875 of 2O2l ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petrtioners/ accused Nos.1 to 8 in C.C.No.1OSO ol 2O2O on the lile of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, arising out of Crime No.1Oi of 2O10 of Gurrampode police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishablc under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of I.p.C.

2. Heard Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Mr.Nazeeruddin Khan, learned counsel representing Mr.T.Balamohan neady, lcarned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that in the year, 2016 LWs.1 to 5 have purchased agricultural land admeasuring Acs.6. 12 guntas, situated in Sy.No.635 and 636 of Koppole Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. [t is stated \ ---'1 2 EW, J Crlp.7875 2021 -I that on 06.70.2020 respondent No.2 and her familSz members ploughed the saicl land in order to cultivate green gram and black gram crop, meanwhlle, on 07.lO.2O2O at l2:OO hours, the petitioners have criminally trespassed into the said land in order to occllpy the land as illegal manner and seeding black and green grams. Basing on the said complairtt, a case in Crime No. 1O 1 of 2O2O was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 tead witi:, 34 of I.P.C. and investigation has been taken up. After collecting all the material, the Inspector of Police flled a charge sheet before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First C1ass, Devarakonda, who inturn has taken cogniza;:rce for the aforesaid offences and numbered as C.C.No. 1O8O oi 2O2O

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that admittedly the lands of the petitioners and unoffici:rl tt"po'-'dt'-'t are adjacent to each other and there is a civil dispute with regard to the boundaries and petitioner No. I filed W P'No'7516 of 2O2O before this Court, wherein this Court directed the po[ce officials not to interfere with the civil disputes. It is further submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 also filed O.S.No. i04 of 2O2O before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda against respondent No.2 and her family members and th'3 husband of j 3 EW, J Crlp 7875 2O2t respondent No.2 is defendant No.3 in the said suit and the said Court also granted ad inteim injunction restrainrng respondent No.2 herein and her family members from interfenng u.ith rhe ir possession and enjoyment over subject property and the saicl injunction order is subsisting. It is further su bmitted that previously also the husband of respondent No.2 lodged a falsc complaint against the petitioners and others on o1-o6.2o20 for the same set of allegations and basing on the said complaint a case in Crime No.48 of 2O2O of p.S.Gurrampode r,r,a s rcgrstered against the petitioners. It is further submitted thar suppressing Lhe earlier complaint and also the injunction order grantcd by the civil Court responclent No.2 lodged the piesent complaint and therefore, it is evident that the petitioners have been Learned counsel for the petitioirers further the entire allegations made against the petitioners are civil in nature and do not constitute any criminal offences. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet are taken at their face value, the said allegations do not constitute the offenccs submitted that implicated falsely alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 4 EW, J Crlp 7875-2021

5. On the other hand, the iearned Assistant Public Prosecutorwouldsubmitthattheoflencesallegedagainstthe petitioners are very serious in nature and on perusal of the material on record would show that as many as LWs l to 10 were examined and unless and until the trial Court examining the veracity of the statements made by the witnesses in their evidence/ statement truth cannot be elicited and therefore' prayed to dismiss the criminal petition'

6. Mr.Naseeruddin Khan, learned counsel repr':senting Sri T' Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing fbr respondent No.2, u,ould submit that both the crimes are independent in nature and the allegations made in the complaint do constitute the offences punishable under Sections 447 arrd 427 tead with 34 of I.P.C. He further submits that the schedule property mentionedinthcsuitandthesubjectpropertyilrlthiscriminal petition are different- He further submits that the petitioners also frled W.P.No.7516 ol 2O2O, wherein this Court had passed an or<ler directing the police authorities not to in1-erfere with the disputes and the said order is not against respondent No'2 and her family members, hence, the contention rlf the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is suppression of facts is 5 EW, J Crlp_7875_2O21 not correct. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the criminal petltron 7 On perusal of the material on record would show that as on the date of registration of the crime i.e., on Og.lO.2O2O, petitioner No.1 filed W.p.No.7516 of 2O2O, wherein this Court directed thc Station House Officer, Gurrampode, not to interfere with the possession of petitioner No.1 herein over the subject Iand uide order, dated 03.06.2020. Even atter the said directions, the police are interfering with the possession of petitioner No.1, he also I'iled C.C.No.89l ol 2O2O on 23.06.2O2O. Petitioner Nos. l, 2 and 4 herein also filed O.S.No.1O4 ot 2O2O before the Senior Civil Judge, Natgonda, wherein the said Court also granted ad interim temporary injunction restraining respondent No.2 and his family members. from intJrfering with the possession of the petitioners over the subject land in I.A.No.359 of 2O2O, dated 1l.Og.2O2O. The record further discloses that the husband of respondent No.2 also lodged a complaint on 01.06.2020 for the very same offences of trespassing and after completion of investigation, the police hled charge shee[ in the month of August, 2O2O and the same w:rs taken cognizance on 3 1 .08. 2O2O as C. C.No.663 of 2O2O. 6 EW, J Crlp 7875-2021 ...1 From the above, it is clear that as on the dilte of lodging 8. complaint there was a clirechon to the police nct to interfere with the possession ol pelitioner No' 1 herein ovt:r the subiect land ancl so also existence of acl inteim injunction order restraining respondent No 2 and her family rrLembers from interfering u'ith the possession of the petitiorrers over the subject land in O.S.No. lO4 of 2O2O and a charge srheet was also filedagainstthepetitionersontheComplaintlodgedbythe husband ol respondent No 2 Admittedly' there are civil disputes tletween the petitioners and respond'3nt No'2 and respondent No.2 as well as the police are hav:'ng knowledge about the directions issued by this Court in \l/ P'No 7516 of 2O2O arrd injunctron order granted in O S No lO4 of 2O2O and also the registration ol Crime No 48 of 2O2O on the same set of allegations of tresPassing t . In State of Haryana v' Bhajan Lall' the Supreme Court g. in the backdrop of interpretation of various rele'rant provisions oftheCr'P.C.underChapterXlVandoftheprinciplesoflaw enunciatedinaseriesofdecisionsrelatingtothcexerciseofthe extraordinary power under Lrticle 226 of the Constitution of Inclia or the inherent powers under section 482 Ct P C gave ' 1992 Supp. (1) scc 335 ./' 7 E\,1/, J Crlp 7875_2O2t the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice. The broad guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard are: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their lace value arrd accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute arty offence or make out a case agarnst the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompalying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police olficers under section 156 (i) ofthe Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Seclion I55 (2J of rhe Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected ir, th. same do not disclose the commission of aly offence and make oul a case againsl the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_co gnizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) oI the Code. "uppo.t lo1 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion J 8 D\ry, J Crlp 7a75 2021 ! that there is sufhcient ground for proceeding agarnst the accused (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the pro\risions of the Code or the concerned Acr (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance oI the proceedings and/or where there is a specil-rc provision in the Code or- the Act concerned, providrng efficacious redress lor the grievance of the aggrieved PartY. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended wrth mala Iide and/or where the proceeding is mzrLiciouslv instituted. with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengearlce on the accused and with a view to spite hirrL due to private and Personal grudge " 1O. From the facts and circumstances stated abrlve, it is made clear that the present case squarely fall within the guideline No.7, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra)' Place reliance orrlthe aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in C.C.No. 1O8O of 2O2O on the file ol the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of I.P.C. are liable to be quashed' 1 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allru'ed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C C No 108O of 2O2O on- I EW, J Crlp 7a75_2O2t the file ol the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 42T read with 34 ol I_p.C. are hereby quashed.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTI OFFICER To, \ 1 . The Judicial First Calss Magistrate at Devarakonda. 2. The Station House officer, brrlirpga. iori"J6iriion, Natgonda District. 3 Two CCs to the pubtic prosecut;r, iigh C;;; f_;h; St"b-"i fufrrbl'n", ,t 1 9n. CC to Smt. K.V.Ralasree, Advocate tOpUCl c. une CG to Sri T.Balamohan Reddy, Advbcate [bpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI NVB/gh I HIGH GOURT DATED:2910712025 ;)/' .-- '::: -_. '- r:^-'-;,O ,} \:' M Ijt ,?,t,i 0g $:P * _!..,, r,, .-.-.-iau ./ '-';--::;;14 ORDER GRLP.No.7875 of 2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION {