High Court · 2025

Smt. Nakka Sandhya Rani, d/o. Subba Rao Age 48 ye-ars' Occ Business' nlo. pfot No. '164, Near Water Tank, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal' R'R District - 500075 ...DE FAcro coMpLAtNANT/RESP.NDENT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C. No. 2799 of 2024 on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, arising out of FIR No. 10Bg of 2024 dated 02-08-2024 registered by the Station House Officer, P.S. Narsingi, Cyberabad, for the alleged offences under Sections 329(4), 324(4), 352, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, and to quash the charge sheet and all further proceedings therein as being an abuse of process of law and devoid of any legal basis. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be qlggsed to stay all further proceedings in c.c. No. 2799 of 2024 on the file of the ll Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, lgi91dranagar, Ranga Reddy District, arising out of FtR NoI 1089 of ZOZq atilea 02-08-2024 registered by the station House 6fficer, p.s. Narsingi, cvu*roro, i". the alleged offences under Sections 329(a), 324(4), 352, ,nO S'5f (Z) oi'tn. Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023, pending dilposar of ihe accompanyrnf'criminat Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Gayathri, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER // THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.9436 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter' lthe BNSS ) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No. 2799 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-Xlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the aforementioned Calendar Case, which pertains to offences punishable under Sections 32S(4), 324(4).352, 351(2) of lhe Bharaliya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereina'fler 'the BNS') 3 I have heard Ms. Gayathri, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No. 1 -State

4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 02.08.2024, respondent No.2 lodged a police report stating that she was in possession of a plot taken on lease from one Munugala Venkat Reddy, where she had constructed shutters. On 19.04.2024, the petitioner, along with others, allegedly trespassed into the said property, used abusive language, . d'- a4 2 \lu (.tl.l'.N'0. 91)6 ol 2{)25 painted on the wall that the plot was in dispute, and locked the shutters Subsequently, on 30.06.2024, certain individuals again trespassed into the property and severed the CCTV camera wires. When the complainant confronted them, they allegedly abused her, threatened to set fire to the shutters if she did not vacate, and erased the previous writings on the wall while claiming ownership of the l.and. Faced with these circumstances, the complainant locked the shutte,rs. However, on

0208.2024, when she attempted to reopen them the petitioner allegedly picked a quarrel, used offensrve language, and threatened her to vacate the premises Based on these allegations, tht-, complaint was Iodged

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being a co-owner, had earlier instituted O S. No 1434 aI 2014 seeking partition of the joint family properties. ln those proceedings, the trial Court had granted an ad-interim injunction on 27.O1 2023 restraining further construction on the disputed property. lt was further contended that the present allegations fail to disclose the existence of the pending civil suit and the subsisting injunction order. The petitioner, having no independent rights apart from the joint ownership, marntains that the criminal complaint is a tactic to convert a civil dispute into a criminal proceeding and to retaliate against his objection to the alleged illegal construction. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner was !'-6j 3 ,\ i ]t./ (.ri.l).lxo. 91 )6 ol 2lD i unlawfully detained on 02.Q8.2024 without registration of any prior police report, and subsequently, a complaint was fabricated and renumbered through fraudulent entries to justify such detention. The charge sheet, it was alleged, merely reproduces the complaint without corroboration from independent witnesses. Furthermore, the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not establish the essential ingredients of mens rca or criminal intent. Hence, lhe continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stale of Haryana v. Bhalan Lal [19g2 Supp (1) SCC 3351, asserting that the case squarely falls within the categories warranting quashing of proceedings. 6 conversely, rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor submitted that the prosecution case rests upon specific incidents and acts attributed lo the petitioner. The investigation, supported by eyewitness accounts, discloses the occurrence of the alleged events and the petitioner,s invorvement' rt was argued that the petitioner's prea of farse imprication is a matter of defence that can be established only during trial. lnterference at the present stage, according to the prosecution, would unduly prejudice the judicial process. Accordingly, the learned Additional public prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the petition 4 Nirt. (.t/.P.i\o. 9J )[ oi ?0? i

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. lt is the petitioner's contention that the dispute rs essentiaily civir in nature, arising out of o.S. No.1434 of 2014 for partition of joint famiry properties, wherein the triar court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining further construction on 27 01 2023. rt is further urged that the criminal complaint is a stratagem to converl a civil dispute into criminal proceedings, that no independent witnesses have been cited, and that the allegations fail to disclose any criminal intent (mens rca). Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhaian Lal 11992 Supp (1 ) SCC 3351'

9. Upon careful consideration, this Court finds that the complaint discloses allegations which' if accepted at their face value' constitute the ingredients of offences under Sections 296' 324(4) 329(3)' 351(2) of the BNS. Whether the allegations are true or false is a rnatter for trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 ot CrPCl528 of the BNSS ORDER CRLP.No.9436 of 2025 !l 1) 2 7 8ti 20fr -..''-4' .,' ..-.' oA^ t, ,,^ y 1.;. (" t ,' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. tF- lo ,\ @ t