The High Court · 2025

.4g2 of .Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum-of Grounds.t cri,iri"li i"tition, the High court may be preased to quash the c.c.No-66s .izozo ";'iil iire ot tne Judiciar First crass Magistrate at Deverakonda. .,.RespondenUGomptainant l.A. NO: 'l oF 2021 Petition under Section -4g2 0f cr-p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminli ietition, the High court may be pleased to stay a[ further proceedings in crime No.663 of 2o2oon the fire of JudicialFirstClassMagistrateatDevarakondaincludingarrestofpetitioner, p"naing disposal of the above criminal petition- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ttre Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal peti-tion and upon hearing the arguments of Ms K'V Rajasree,AdvocateforthePetitionersandtheSriE'Ganer;h'AssistantPublic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No'1 and of Sri Nazeeruddin Khan' Advocate, representing and Sri T Balamohan Reddy' Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL PETITION No.78 INAL CRI M 76 of 2o21 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos.l to 6 in C.C.No.663 of 2O2Oon the lile of the Additior-ral Judicial First Ciass Magistrate, Devarakonda, out of Crime No.4g of 2O2O of Gurrampode police Nalgonda District, registered for the offences ansrng Station, petitioners; Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned punishable undcr Section s 447 and 42T readwith 34 of I.p.C 2. Heard counsel for the Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1_State and Mr.NazeeruIdin Khan, learned counsel representing Mr. T Balamohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3, Brief facts of the prosecution case are that respondent No 2 lodged a compraint stating that in the year, 2016 he had purchascd the land admeasuring Acs.6. 12 guntas, situated in Sy.Nos.635 and 636 of Koppole Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District, fron I Thadru Ramachary and Thaduri Yadaiah and got the same registered in the name ol his u,ife viz. . 2 '\'- - '1 EW, J Crlp 7a76_2O21 - Usharani and wife of his brother by name Anitha and since then they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is further stated that there is a rift between the lands of respondent No.2 and the petitioners and in the said rift Palm and Neem trees were grown up and an altercation took place when the petitioners cut dov"n the said trees and the matter was placed before the elders and petitioner No.2 admitted his guilt before the elders, as such no police complaint was l'rdged' It is further stated that taking advantage of the absence of respondent No.2, in order to occupv the land, the accused persons have trespassed into the land of respondr:nt No 2 on 23.O5.2O2O by breaking the fencing stones, which was erected around the farm, destroyccl the boundary lines u'ith JCB and Tractors and planted nelL' sweet limc plants Therefore' respondent No.2 hled complaint against the petitioners with a delay of 8 days. Basing on the said complaint, t t't"'t '"t tt'rn" No.48 of 2O2O was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 tead with 34 of I.P.C. and investigation has been taken up' After collecting all the material, the Inspector of Police filcd a charge sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, --1 3 EW, J Crlp-7876 2O2I Devarakonda, who inturn has taken cognizance tor the aforesaid offences and numbered as C.C.No.6 63 of 2O2O 4 Learned counsel for Lhe petitioners would submit that admittedly the lands of the petitioners and unofficial respondent are adjacent to each other and there is a civil dispute u,ith regard to the boundaries. It is lurther submitted that the entire allegations made against the petitioners are civil in nature and do not constitute an-V criminal offences. It is further submitted that even if the allcgations made in the complaint and the charge sheet are taken at their face value, the sard allegations do not constitute the offences as alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. t

5. On the other hand, the learned essista'nt public Prosecutor would submit that the offlences alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature and on perusal of the material on record would show that as many as LWs. 1 to 13 were examined and unlcss and until the trial Court examining the veracity of Lhe statements made by the witnesses rn their evidence/ statements, truth cannot be elicited and therefore, prayed to dismiss the criminal petition. -\ -r\r 4 EW, J Crlp 7876-2021

6. Mr.Naseeruddin Khan, learned counsel representing Sri T' Bala Mohan Reddy, Iearned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 n'ould submit that encroachmcnt hzrs been done by the petitioners by criminally trespassing into the property of respondent No.2 with the help of JCB and Tractor and have planted the new seeds, n'hich would ultimately resulting criminal action against all the petitioners and after examining the eye witnesses and collecting the materia I the Investigating Officer had filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and therefore, there are no merits and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 7 . On perusal of the material on record would show thal there are civil disputes betrl'een the petitioners and the unofhcial respondent. In vie w of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and oh the guidelines of the Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Otherst, this Court hnds that the points raised by the petitioners cannot be countenanced. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Petition at this stagc and the Crimir-ral petltion is liable to be dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioners, '1zozr1 + s.cE.{o44 I 5 EW, J Crlp 7876 2021 before the trial Court in C_C.No.663 of 2O2O on the hle of the Judicial Magistrate ol F.irst Class, Devarakonda, is dispensed with on each and every adjournmcnt. Honever, the petitioners dhall appear be fore the trial Court as and when specihcally required. The Petitioners are at 1iberty to avail the alternate remedies, as available under lau,, including fiiing of discharge application, if not yet filcd. 8 Accordingly, this Criminal petiLion is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 5r" B,p noN o FFICER To, I \ '1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Devarakonda. 2. The Station House Officer, Gurrampode Police Station, Nalgonda District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Ms.K.V. Ralasree, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri T.Balamohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] NVB/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 tg StP tijZl ..,..-\ ')-..\ n .. r I .->-.D/i [,' '_ ,./ '1.-_*-:i_.-=2.'.'- i/',' ORDER GRLP.No.7876 ot 2021 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION