The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7877 of 2O2l ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.l273 of 2O2l on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, arising out of Crime No.195 of 2O2l of Gurrampode Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the olfences punishable under Sections 341 and 5O6 read with 34 of I-P.C.

2. Heard Ms.K.V.Rajasree, Iearned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Nazeeruddin Khan, Iearned counsel representing Mr.T.Balamohan Redcly, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that respondent No-2 lodged a complaint stating that he is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.6. 12 guntas, situated in Sy.No.635 and 636 of Koppole Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District and got the same registered in the name of his u.ife viz. Usharani and wife of his brother bY name ( \-- l "i - I 2 DW, J ('.:'ly> 7877 2O2l Anitha and since then they a-re in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said iald. It is furthel stated that accused l\o, 1 is also having an agriculture iar d adjacent to the land of respondent No.2 and accused ,r[,:r.1 and his family nrembers are used to pick up quarrels with respondent No.2 claiming that the subject larL<1 belongs to them anrl cases in Crime Nos.48 of 2O2O for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 rea d u,ith 34 of I.P.C.; Crime No.53 of 2O2O for the offences unc-ier Sections 447,427,341, 354, 323,5O4 ald 5O6 rearl ..vith 34 of I.P.C. and Crime No.l0l of 2O2A for the ofl-ernces under Sections 147 arLd 427 read with 34 of I.P.C. lv::re registered against the petitioners and their family me rbers. It is further stated that even after registration of lhe aforesaid crimes, on 28.06.2O2 1 at 15:30 hours the pet l-loners again committed the same offences and they also threatened respondent No.2 u.ith dire consequences. Basing on the said complainl, a case in Crime No.195 of 2O2l l'as registered against the petitioners for the offences pur-ris,:rable under Sections li4 1 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. anrl investigation has been laken Lrp. After collecting all the rnaterial, the d%, a 3 EW, J Crlp 7877..2O21 Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet bcforc the Court of the Aclditional .Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, u,ho inLurn has taken cognizance for the aforesaid olfences and numbercd as C.C.No. 1273 of 2021.

4. Le arned counsel for the petitioners would submit that aclmittedlv the lands of the petitioners and unofficial responden t are adjacent Lo each other and there is a civil dispute i,r.ith regard to the boundaries and petitioner No,1 and others filed W.P.No.75 16 of 2O2O before this Court, wherein rhis Court clirecteci the police officials not to interfere with the civil disputcs. It is lurther submitted that the petitioners and others alscr lilecl O.S.No.1O4 of 2O2O before the learned Senior Civil .,ludge, Nalgonda against respondent No.2 and his familv members and the said Court also granted ad interim injunction restraining respondent No.2 herein and his family members from intcrfering with their possession and enjoyment over subject property and the said injunction order is subsisting. It is further submitted that previously also the family members ol respondent No.2 lodged false complaints against the petitioners and others on O1.06.2020 and Oa.lO.2O2O for the same set of :tllegations and basing on the said complaints cases in Crime Nos.48 and 1O 1 of 2O2O of P.S.Gurrampode werc registerecl 4 E\1/, .J Crlp 7877 2O2l \-* 1 - t against tlle pctitioncrs and Lheir familv member:;. lt is further submitte(l that suppressing lhe carlier complaint s and zrlso thc injunctiorr ordcr granted bt, thr: civil Court rr:.pondcnt No.2 lodged thc prescnt complaint and thereforc, it is e'."dent that the pe titioners hzrvc be'en implic:rtecl falselv. Le arrt.'<l counsel for the petitioners furthcr submit that the entire alli::gatrons made against tlLc petitioners arrc civiI in nature and do rLot collstitute any crimrnal off-ent:es. It is further submitted 1l'.zrt r:ver-r rf the allegations rnadc in the complarnt and thc chrtrge sheet are taken at their iace valuc, the said allegations dc, r- ot (ronstitute the offences allcgecl ergainst thc petitioners. Therelt,re, prayed to quash the procecdings against thc petitioners.

5. On thc othcrr hand, the iearncd Ast;i.:itant Public Prosecutor u'ould submit that thc offcnces alleg,'cl against the petitioners are very serious in nature and on llerusal of the material on recorcl rv<tuld shorv that as many as L'Vs.1 to 8 u'ere examined ancl unless and unlil the trial Courl ::xamining the veracity crf t he statcmenls made by the witt-tt:sses in their evidenc(] / staLement truth cannot be eiicited irnd therefore, prayed to dismiss lhe criminal petition.

6. Mr.I'Iaseeruddir-r Khan, learned coutrsel repr:'senting Sri T- Bala Moh,rn Rcdd1,, learned counsel appearing lilr respondent -7 5 trVV,.J CrIp 7877 2O2l No.2, r.r'ould submit that all the crimes arc independent in nature .lnd the allegations made in the present complaint dcr constitute the olfences punishable under Sections 34 I and S0€; read with 34 of I.P.C. Hc further submits that the schcdule propert,\' mentioned in thc suit and the subject propertv in this criminal pctition are diflerent. He lurther submits that pctitioncr No. I and othcrs also filed W.P.No.75l6 of 2O2O, lrherein this Courr had passed an order directing the police :ruthoritrcs not to interfcre with the dispute s and thc said ordcr is not against respondent No.2 and his family members, hence, the conl.cr-rtion of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is suppression ol lacts is not correc[ and prayed to dismiss the criminal petirion.

7. On perusal of the material on record would shou, that as on the datc ol registration of the crirne i.e., on 08. 10.2020, petitioner No. I filed W.P.No.7516 of 2O2O, wherein this Court directcd the Station House Ofhcer, Gurrampode, not to interfcre ri,ith the possession of petitioner No.1 herein over the subject land uide order, dated 03 .06.2020. Even after the said direcLions, thc police are interfering with the possession of petitioner No.1, he also filed C.C.No.891 of 2O2O on 23.06.2O2O. Petitioner Nos. 1 , 2 and 4 herein aiso filed O.S.No. lO4 of 2O2O , i 6 EW, J t)rlp 7877 2O2l \--1 ta'\, - I \ before thr: Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, n,hr:rern ttre sard Court also gra rted ad inlenm remporan' injttnct,, rr restraining respondent No.2 and his l:rmilv rncmbcrs from interfering u'ith the poss,:ssion of the pclitioners ove r thc sukr;ect land in I.A.No.35') ol 2O2O, clatccl 11.08.2020. Th<: record further discloses that the familr,, members of rcsponcrcr-rt No.2 also lodged tu,o other complaints for the vcry same s.'t of allegations and after completion o[ invcstigation, thc polrr e filed charge sheet in the month o[ August, 2O2O and ()ctobe:- .2O20 and the same were taken cognizance as C.C.No.663 of 2O2O and C.C.No.l (tSO ol 2O2O

8. Frol t.hc abovc, it is clear thal as on the,.lilte of lodging complaint there u'.is a dircction to the police n.r1, to .interferc with the posscssion o[ pctitioner No. t hcrein r;r r:r the subject land and scr also exisLcnce ol ad interirn in. rlnction order restraining respondent No.2 and his family nt,-rmbers from interferinlg rvith thc posscssron of the petitio.rr:rs over the subject land in O.S.No.104 of 2O2O and chargc slteets were also filed against the petitioners on the complaints todged by the family me mbers of rcspondcnt No.2, Admittcdl."''. thele are civil disputes bctu.cen the petitioners and rcsponrlt t-rt No.2 and respondetlt No.2 as u'cll as thc police tlrc h::','ing kl-rorvleclge a / EW, J CrIp 7877 2O2l about thc directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.7516 of 2O2O and injunction order granted in O.S.No. lO4 of 2O2O and also the registration of Crime Nos.48 and 101 of 2O2O on thc same set of allegations.

9. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lall, the Supreme Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr. P. C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of lau' enunciated in a series o[ decisiorrs rclating to the exercise of the extraordinary pou.er undcr Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia or the inherent po\\rers r-rndcr section 482 Cr. P. C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised cither to prevent abr-rse of the process of the court or otherwisc to secure the ends ofjustice. The broad guidelines laid dou,n by the Supreme Court in this regard are:- "(1) Wherc the allegalrons made in the hrst information report or the complaint, even rf they are taken at their facc value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against l-he accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, i[ any, accompanying the FIR do not __ _disclosc a cognizable offcncc, justifying an investigation '1992 supp. (1) scc 335 8 E!1/, J Crlrl 7877 2O2l by prlice ofhcers under sectiorr 156 (l) ol the Lodr: e\cept undt:r irn order of a IVIagistr:rtc u,ithir.r the c,rrrieu. of Sectron 155 12) ofthe Codc. (3) \Arherc the uncontrovcrted irllcg.rtlons madt. Lt thc F-lR or c('mplaint arld the evidcnce collected rn sul)[,or1 o1'thc samt: do not disclose the commission o[:rny rtffi:nce aIrd makr: orLt a case against the accuscd- (4) \Arhere, the allegaLions in thc FIR do not co'r sritute a cognizable offence but constitutc only a non,r rtr{nizable offence, no investigation is pt'rmitted bv a pol r:c officer without an order of a magistratc as c-ontemplir L-'rl under Scction 155 (2) ol thc Corle. (5) 'r\/here the allegations marlc in thc FIR or , omplaint are so absurd and inherently improbablc on th basis of whic'r no prudent person can cvcr rcach a J Lrst , .)nclu sion that there is suflicient grouncl lor proceedrng allilrnst the accused. (6) Where there is an express lcgal bzrr engraJted in alv of the J)rolisions o[ the Code or the concerned r\r t (under which a criminal procccding is institutecrr to the institution and continuance o[ the proceedings and/or r,r,her: there is a speciltc provision in the Code or- the Act conccrned, pro.,,iding effrcaciott s rc(lrcss [or thc r:i-ievance of tht: aggrieved party. (7) \.\rhere a criminal proceeding is manilestll attended with mala hde and/or where the proceeding is nti;.JLciously instituted with an ulterior motive lor wrezrkinij \ cngeance on the accused and with a view to spitc hil'r due to private ald personal grudge." 7 I EW, J Crlp 7877 2021

10. From the facts irnd circumstanccs stated above' it is made clear that the prescnt casc squarclv fall within the guideline No.7, as laid dor,'"'n bv tl're Apcx Court in the case of State of Hatyana v. Bhajan Lal (supra)- Placc reliance on the aforcsaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in C.C.No 7273 of 202 1 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistratc ol First Class' Dcvarakonda against the petitioners for the oflences punishzrble uncler Sections 34 t and 5o6 read with 34 of I.P C are lrable to be quashed 11 Accordingll', this Criminal Pctitron rs allowed and the proceedings against thc pctilioners in C'C'No 1273 of 2O2l on thefileoftheAdclitionalJucliciirlMagistrateofFirstClass, Devarakonda against thc petitioners lor the offences punishable under Sections 34 I and 506 read q'ith 34 of I'P'C' are hereby quashed.

12. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sha11 stand closed To SDI- C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFTCER ,,TRUE COPY" lH'.I'{H.Et!::,.l.J;*[tr#fliq?,1,"',"::::"*",., -" on" CC to Mr' Nazeeru " 4 Two CCs to the Publrc t HYderabad lOUTl nJvocate'loPUCl , ,,^ Drosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' I EPR-/gh

5. Two CD CoPtes HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7877 ol 2021 , - '' :-:-_ -.-- i ,. .,,,. t:,,,.--'.'... , ,.....\. ] t lSSipZ0?j ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION. q 0r\