The High Court · 2025

This Petltion :oming on for hearing, upon perusing the [v]emorandum of Grounds of Crim nal Petition and upon hearing the argunrents of Sri M/S BHARADWAJ AS,SICIATES ,Advocate for the PetitionerSr Syed Yasar Mamoon, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Res:orrdent No.1 and of Sri_Kireet Advo,late for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER: i I l I I i ') ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.865O of2017 This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, lO, 12 and 15 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Codc (for short 'Cr.P.C'') seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.604 of 2016 on the hle of the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram'

2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel representing on behalf of M/ s. Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/ 1"t respondent and Sri Kireet, learned counsel for the 2'd respondent. Perused the record.

3. CC No.604 of 2016 on the hle of the trial Court was registered for the offences under Sections 42O,447,427, 468' 471 and 120-El read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein ald others basing on the crime in FIR No.226 of 2O13, of Police Station, Maheshwaram, Cyberabad District, on a complaint lodged by Mucha Yadagiri Reddy, i.e. the 2"d respondent herein and Generai Power of Attorney holder of one Gunuganti Ravindar Rao alleging that Wondarla Holidays Private Limited, which is the owner of aclja(ent lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao' to whom thr.r 2' 'l respondent herein is the general pos'el- 'rf ilttorney' by colluding v".tl-r the pattadars and others encroach:d into the lands o1 s .lirl Gunuganti Ravindar Rao and da:nzr ged the boundan. sttrt's rvith a vieu'to grab the said propertl"

4. l]rrsing on the said allegations' investJga:1on was conducted itnC charge-sheet was laid into the trial Court' which Court, uport ,zrking cognizance, assigned CC No 6C4 ol 2016 to the samt'. 'f l-Lt: contents of the said charge-shect are t s lnder : The2rr':-espondentistheGencralPowerofAtLrrnevHolder of Gunugarrti Ravindar Rao, who, pr-rrchased land : drneasuring Ac.13 2tr g,Irttas in Sy.Nos.263,265,266,267' 2bt\' 27O' 272' 273, 274 anrl 275 situated in Kongara Khurd-'A Rr'u in'al Village r:qistered sale deed document bearing N:3042 of limits v dc 2oo5. Siinr:rl ti.ren Ravindhar Rao is in peaceful poss.:ssion of the lrile his vendors were in possession of tLrc p operty for propert], "r thelast50\'rt]ars'Thereisapproximatelyl2oacrescl.ilrndinthe above surt't:,' numbers and all the 15 owners al-c ilt peaceful possess iolr o I tl-reir respective parts of the land In th:: r ears 2O11 afld 2Ol2 ttre representatives of "Wonderla Limited Company" approached and requested said Rrrvindhar Rao to se11 the prtc,perly to them. When Ravindhar Rao r -'fr':sed to sell Holi la',rs Private 7 thelandstothem,WonderlaHolidaysPvt.Ltd.Companyby conspiring with T Sunil Kumar/A5' Raviryala villager G.Madusudhan Gupta-GPA holder of Wonderla and their vendors viz. (1) Smt.M.Sarala Kumari/A7, (2) Smt M'sunanda Raj/A8' (3) Smt.M.Vijaya Laxmi/A9, (4) Nimma Sujeevan Reddy/A4 and (5) A.Vijay Kumar/A6 along with the vendors and GPA holders of the documents bearing Nos'1637/2O12' 1454 l2OL2' 1455l2Ol2' 163812012, 18125 /2012 and 691 l2Ol2' with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant's principal' cheated him by executing the above said registered documents showing boundaries differently from the link documents and got them registered at the SRO, Maheshwaram Basing on the wrong boundariesshownintheaboveregistereddocuments,Wanderla company criminally trespassed into the lands of Ravindhar Rao and removed the existing boundaries' Nimma Ravinder Reddy has assisted directly and rndirectly for the criminal trespass and registering the documents with wrong boundaries' Further' Wonderlaw Holidays Limitecl filed a civil suit in oS No'2202 of 2ol2onthelrleofthelearnedPrincipalseniorCivilJudge,Ranga Reddy District against Ravinder Rao seeking Injunction' Therefore the complainant has requested the police for necessary action against the above said individuals' \ \

5. RtLsing on the allegations madr: irt t're above complairrt, I-W -22 I M.Gangadhar, Inspector of police, Maheshrvararn Police Station registered a case in I"iR 1,1o.266 of 20 1 3 for tlr : ol-fences under Section s 42O, 447 , 427 , 482 and 120- (B) read lr,ith Section 34 IPC against the accused. A part from crime irr FIR No.226 of 2073, of Police Station, Mabeshwaram, Cyberabad D srtrict another crime in FIR No.426 of 12( 1l was also registered ra sing on the private complainl lodged b,r the 2"d respondr:nt o:r Lhe I'ile of Lhe Police Station, Pahadi Siharr:ef, which was late.r tt'ansl'erred to Adibatla Police Station ancL -c- registered as FIR l,lo.()'-r of 2015. Hence, the acts of criminal trer;pass and damaging ll-,e boundaries in the lands ol Ravinct-'r Rao are clubbed anrJ rnvestigated into. After completion of jn\,cs r-igation, a charge shec I ri,as Iaid into the trial Court, whi<:h u'a s rumbered as CC No.6tt,l of 2076 on lhe file of the learned VI r4e Lropolitan Magistra te, M aheshwaram.

6. ,Aggrieved by the said criminal proccedings, the petitioncrs prr:ferred the present criminal petil ion s:e..<ing their discharge. J'trr,- contention of the petitioners througtL thir; criminal pelition is Power of that the de-facto complainant is the alleqe,l General Attorney Holder of Guniganti Ravind e ' Rao who Izrrd admeasuring Ac.13.26 Gnts., in dilfcre nt survey. :Tn"*'o t --' c numbers of Kongara Khurd, Raviryal Village and that the petitioners herein purchased land which is overlapping with the alleged lald of the principai of de-facto complainant' A perusal of contents of entire charge-sheet discloses a civil- dispute and that the civil dispute cannot be given a cloak of criminal offence as an arm twisting device for achievement of some expectations of the de-facto complainant. Wonderla Holidays Limited, against whom the de-facto complainant made serious allegations, was not made as ar accused. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the Directors of said Wonderla cannot be made vicariously liable for the offences under penal code and their implication is nothing but an abuse of process of 1aw. The petitioners/A 1O, Al2 and A15 are only the attesting witnesses of sale transactions in favour of the company. The recitals of charge-sheet do not disclose any reason or ground to charge/ implicate the petitioners and the investigating officer did not anaiyze the evidence. The owner of larrd viz. G.Ravinder Rao hled OS No.425 of 2O15 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Wonderla seeking mandatory injunction and demarcation of land and that he also hled OS No.22o2 of 2Ol2 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Wonderla seeking perpetual injunction and obtained an interim injunction dated 28.08.2013 in IA No.1253 of 2012. Canvassing -1 i the abor,'e p.rr:rrnds, learned counsel for the Petitione.'s sought to discharge [he petitioners from the impugr-.e 1 criminal proceedr ngs

7. (ln behalf of the 2"d respondent, zr cou:ltcr is hled mainly c on -encling that assiduousness evidencer collt cL rcl during investiga Lio-r speaks volumes about the unlawful, lclonious and actionable r:r'inre committed by the petitioners and th,: t-ial Court after thoroullh perusal had aptly follor.t ed the pr ocess in accordarrcc u i',h law and afler applying due diligcnc,: 1 ad taken cognizarce :l the offences and hence, Lhere is no crri)t orr Lhe part of the triu. Clourt in such exercise- The contc ntrc n of the petitione'rs tha.t the issue is merely a civil dispute is absolute preposterous and distorted for the rcason that the p,etrtioners have ur. lavrlirlly, consciously and malfeasantly e,x :cr rted and fabricate'd lalse documents to illegally and deploral lv grab the land belonging to the principal of the de-facto comprltrinant. The material evid ence filed along with charge-sheet ri,ould clearly prove th,l c-iroinal conspiracy and common intentirrn arnong the petitioners i rr trying to illegally grab the properl.\. rir4hteously belong to Sri G.Ravinder Rao. When the allegatiorrs o I forgery, fabrication of' documents and cheating are levellecL ag,linst the petitioners 1.hrt same cErnnot be simply termed as a r.tv 1 dispute a from any perspective and angle arrd incontestably the said crime is a fit case for comprehensive trial by the trial Court to bring the true facts out in accordance with 1aw by recording justifiable evidence. The criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil in nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima-facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. The proceedings could not be quashed only bccause the respondents had hlcd a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents and that in a criminal Cor-rrt the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court' If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants' apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings' Such a course cannot be a mandate of law' OS No '2202 of 2012 was hled by Wonderla Hoiidays Limited but not the principal of the de- facto complainant and pendency of the said suit is no way a bar to proceed with the criminal proceedings. While exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr'P'C' the Court has to keep in x ( mind that it should not ordinarily embark uporr ar enquiry whether thc evidence in question is reliable or not o1' rvhether on a reasonalrlc appreciation of its accusatlon u,:lrrld not be sustaincC. 'l'his is a function of the trial Court. Ih cugl-r the judicial proccs s should not be an instrument of o;,prsssion or needless he riLr;sment but the Court should be circums,pect and judicious; ;tr :xercising discretion and should takr: irl relevant facts and c rr(:llmstances in consideration beforr: is:;l I n,3 process under ljer: .rcn 482 Cr.P.C., lest the Section bt:c tmcs an instrumcnt rn the hands of accused persons to clain d ifferential treatment onlv because the accused persons can spijrr(l money to approactr higher forums. This Section is not alr ir strument handed ove. 1() an accused to short circuit a prose(--r.1i(,n and to bring atronl ils sudden death. In support o[ thcir contention, learned r;oulL..;r:l for the 2"d respondent relied upon t're following decision s; : t 2 3 4 Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. The i3tate of Maha:rashtra and othersr. M.Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and another2. Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Eerrgal and others3 Gurde'v Singh Ihler Vs. State of NCT of Delhia. t Cr .A lt;. .155 o12019 of Hon'ble supreme Court ' Al R 200 I Suplcrrre Couft 3014 'AIR200rSC1846 138{20,t '; t;1p 279 o l : i i I i I I i I I .(^\ 5 Corporation Vs. NEPIC India Limited and Indian Oil otherss. 8. This Court perused the entire material placed record and heard the submissions made on either side and gave utmost consideration to the same' The crux of the case' as seen from the charge-sheet, is that the principal of the complarnant viz' Guniganti Ravinder Rao purchased land admeasuring A 13'26 Gnts., in Sy.Nos.263, 235,266, 267,26a' 27O' 272' 273' 274 ar.d 275 situated at Kongarakurd-A Raviryal Village vide registered sale deed document bearing No 3042 of 2005 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and his vendors were in possession of the same for the last 5O years prior to his purchase. The above said survey numbers consist a total land admeasuring Ac'120-0O Gts ' under the possession of 18 members. During the year 2Ol1 12 representatives of Wonderla Holidays Pvt. Ltd', requested to sell out the land for their business needs but the saicl Ravinder Rao refused for the same' Accordingly, the Directors of said Wonderla' by conspiring with the accused and others, with an intention to cause loss to Ravinder Rao, without verifying the documents' boundaries and extent illegaliy got registered sale deed documents bearing 5 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736 I I I I i Page l0 ti; Nos. 163',/ ':tl'.2:'t12, 1454 of 2012, 1455 of 2Ol'.2. 7618 c>f 2012, 1825 of 2o1.1 and 691 of 2Ol2 before the Sub-Regi;trr Offtce, Maheshr.rarrrn and taking advantage of the said docu ne nts, have illegally an r I [c rcibly encroached into the lands of sa id Ravinder Rao anC dis,urbed the boundaries. Accordingly, a1:art from approachinll the civil Court, the said Ravinder Rao jnir iated the prescnt r:rinrinrrl proceedings against the accused.

9. lt s conlended by learned counsel for tJrt p:titioners that contenlj rf entire charge-sheet disclose a civil ltspute and the samt, hrls lteen converted into criminal case to ar m tu,ist the accused anrl t.he same is glaringly evident from the a( )t ,)f the 2nd respondt'n1 irr initrating civil proceedings vide OS No..l2li ol 2015 on the f:lc cr1- the learned VIII Additional District .)t clge. Ranga Reddy Distlr<rt against Wonderla seeking manclaton i rjunction and demar.ation of land. It is also evident from thc ie,:ord that perpetual ir,lj r-r rrction was granted as per orders clateC 2E;.08.2O13 in IA No 125! of 2012 rn OS No.2202 of 2072 on rh: lilc of the learned Prinripal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in respect c,f tL c' subject land. 10 I {,t n,beit, opposing the same, learned cou ts, )1 for the 2"d responder.l contended that assiduous evidence t,ol tected by the investigat urn speaks volumes about the complcit y of the. Pagc I I petitioners and that the unlawful, conscious and malfeasalt acts of the petitioners in executing and fabricating the documents to illegally and depiorably grab the land of the principal of the de- facto complainant cannot be termed as civil natured acts and the same deserves comprehensive lrial' The compticity ol the petitioners, attracting the criminal liability, has to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court'

11. The record goes to show that during the course of investigation, the investigating ofhcer examined around 16 witnesses and collected documents. Further, there are civil suits pending with regard to the subject matter' It is an admitted fact that there are allegations and counter allegations advanced on either side.

12. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr'P'C'' has to beexercisedwithcareandintheexerciseofitsjurisdictionthe High Court shall examine whether a matter which was essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence' Where the ingredient required to constitute a criminal offence are notmadeoutfromabarerecordingofthecomplaint'the continuation of the criminal proceedings will constitute abuse of the process of the Court' However, it has not been laid down that is pending the crirninal merely because a civil suit i-'i proceeding c'.rnnot simultaneously proceed or in vieir of mere pendenc,l' c 1 civil proceedings, the criminal proceedin11s are to be stayed or rlirashed. When the facts of the case ctr hand are perused. the pctitioners are alleged to have commit:terl t-re acts of criminal col:;piracy, cheating, forgery and illegal trt:sprass in to the lands of the de-facto complainant. In that view cf t-te matter pendenc:1, r,,f r:ivil suits cannot bar the de-facto comp:ti rant from initiatinr3 c -irainal proceedings. It is pertinent to k,:el, in mind that the all,r!.ltions levelled against the petitioners art tlte subject matter cf ,r i,,rL and without testing the same on the t()u( hstone of the trial , lrl r complicity or otherwise cannot be clcc:ir cd. It is further to rc' noted that crime in FIR No.426 cf 2013 rvas also registered tr.rs1ng on the private complaint lodged b,, the 2"d responclrlnt orr the file of the Police Station, Pahadi Shar-,:ef, which was latc r rt'if tsfe rrcd to Adibatla Police Station anc 'c :egistered as FIR No-!rct cl 2015 1:l . A t this juncture, it is apt to mention he r e ir r that the Hon'b1e Strprr:me Court has reiterated the settlecl princil:1es of law as laid clorvn Ln a number of judgments, including M/ s.Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and others6 that th€ pot'er of quashing should be exercised sprringly rvith 6 (:t020I . licc 180 t t circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, the criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, quashing of a complaint/ FIR should be an exception and rarity thar-r an ordinary rule, ordinarily the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police. However, the inherent power of the Court is recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process under Section 482 Cr 'P 'C ' ' and that the power under Section 482 ol Cr-P-C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious' It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court'

14. When the facts of the case on hand are tested with the guidelines enunciated supra and also the contentions advanced and allegations and counter allegations made on either side this Court is of the opinion that the same has to be tested on the touchstone of fu1l-fledged trial and that without conducting full-fleclged trial, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners will not meet the ends of justice and it is a premature stage to come to a conclusion on either way in this regard Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present criminal petition' ( J (1: i 5. n the result, the criminal petition is di smissed Interlocur.or.,' t, pplications, if any pending, snall :ls o stand dismisser 1 Sd/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SISTAIIT REGISTRAR AS I //TRUE COPY// \ \r SIiCTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXVI rvletropolitan tt/lagistrate, Maheshwaram, 2. The Station Hotrse Officer,lt/laheshwaram Police Station,Cy cerabad 3. One CC to lFll M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Advocate ['fUT] 4. One CC to S;RL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate IOPLTC] Two CD Copies PIIKR/PSL I I F TUEsi4 e .)'ot o 1?, '?1 ( \AY 2025 i(,. t { + .., D^ \ r )". r'crrr:o HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER CRLP.No.8650 of 2017 Criminal Petition is l) is missed "I