The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. M. Narayana Reddy,, S/o Koti Reddy, Age 74 yrs, occ: Business R/o 5_9_19,1st nool. 'd".i"trriri ioad, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 The State of Telangana, Rep by its public prosecutor, Hrgh Court for the State of Terangana.

2. c. Suresh pandrt Rao., s/ o pandit Rao, Aged 5i;::SPoNDENT occ. Business, R/ o H No. 1 0-3_8t A, E;i M".ffialy, Secunderabad "bort ...RESpoNDENrNo.2/rieracroC6-n,t-pllir,rar.rr No.i Peiltion under Section l?g gf,BN-S^S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimin,ri Fetition, the High Court mav 0e pteased to pass orders gyr:lilg tnu pio.""O]ngs"inctuOing the order dated 1e.o4 2o2s in crr M p No 3tb ot zois ii i;;; il;,;;e," r 2024 in c c No. 3e82 it #33J" the rire or the r Adriiio;a; 'iii.i"rrotirr Masistrate court at .BNSS . Petition under Section^52g,of

!.A. NO: 10 F 202s prayed that pending disposal of the marn apprication fired to olss order ror-incrJoin'jine lroer oatea 1g.04.2025 in crr'M p No 378 0f 2025 in c.rime No 379 .r ioiiir'c i No. 3982 0f 2025 0n the fite of the I Additionat chief Juoiciai M;s;;;;i"-i;;iat Hyderabad, this court may be preased to stav arj further proceeiiil;';;;N" s982 of 2025 on the fire of the Honourabre r Acaitionar-ctrer JuJir]rr' ira""ii.irt" court at Hyderabad including the appearance of the accused in tne inieiEs't.ot justice. Grounds of crminal p"tiil.:n^lo.'h_earing, upon perusing the Memorandum of v,s rAS i H i iewvi i i: l.il4i"!rlii,J"%:ffi ::'.r;i E:iii]jl3,,: Assistant public prosecutor on beharf.of tn"'n"rp"riJ"i No.1. and sri c.Ruthwik Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 This petition comino ,"',T The Court made the following: ORDER .) THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10740 ot 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petiticr ers-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings inclu<lr rg the order dated 19.04.2025 in Crl.M P. No.378 of 2025 in Crirr= No.379 of 2024 in CC No 3982 of 2025 on the file of the l-Ac< itional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad

2. Heard Sri Goverdhan Venu, learned counse 'epresenting M/s. Nomos Vistas, learned counsel for the petition€r; on record, Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, e cpearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri C. Ruthwik Rerr dy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petr ioners have broken the boom barrier, which was guarded by the st:, urity guards and that they have threatened the security guards and i bused them in filthy language at the stilt floor of the apartment at l.No.5-9-19, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad and have damaged re property pertaining to the de facto complainant causing financi rl loss. lt is alleged that they have trespassed into the stilt floor are.; and parked -th'eir vehicles forcibly, causing inconvenience and tr,uble in the 2 ETD,J cd.P No.10710 ot 2025 premises, created galata and unrest to the occupants of the apartments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not committed any such alleged act of trespass or abusing the security guards and that they never trespassed into the premises of the de facfo complainant and have never caused any financial loss to him. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners based on a false complaint would be an abuse of process of raw He further submitted that the earrier complaint fired by the de faclo complainant has been closed by referring it as civil in nature, pursuant to which the de facto complainant has filed a protest petition before the court of l_Additional Chief Judicial IVagistrate, Nampalry, upon which the investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 329(3), 115(2),292,352(2) read with 3(5) of BNS against the petitioners. Thus, in the first instance, the police could conclude that the allegations are false and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Budida Rajaiah v. S.H.O. Manthani p.S.i and in 12022 Latestcasetaw 1999 Tet - J EfD,J crt-P- No-10/o ol 2025 Mr. Sultan Ahmed Khan and others v. The State r:' Telangana and a nother2.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 tri s submitted that though the petitioners have influenced the police e uthorities by their high handed nature and the proceedings were c;l tsed as civil in nature, but he filed protest petition and the trial cot t has rightly allowed the protest petition and ordered for investigatir> t. The prima facle case exists against the petitioners and that the,r have ample material to prove the offence against the petitioners. - -., therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record

7. The offences alleged against the petitioners 32 )(3), 115(21, 292, 352(2) read with 3(5) of BNS. The petitioners :rr -. alleged to have trespassed into the stilt floor area of the apit tments and damaged the boom barrier. The learned counsel for t r I petitioners relied upon the decision in Budida Rajaiah's case ('l supra), wherien it was held that: - A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint disclori( s that the second respondent is the owner of the agricultura land and 5 she raised seasame and green gram cro[ s On 09.08.2014, at about 11:30 AM, the entire crop was dam;u ed by ' cl .e . I'to ot zo2z, aated 2s.10.2024 4 ETD,J Ctl.P. No.lOtlO oI2OZi petitloners/A-l and A_2 by using tractor. The said allegations are made only wtth an lntentton tr "ppe,,. r,loJ;:ffi:jlJ;:"JJl: criminar case rt arso petitioners that the second respondent rost before the courts below about her rights over the over rhe property and rires a ",'iH::il::li[i[Til'l: and damage to the property. Since the person who got a bona fide right over the property gained entry into the property as owner himself, it does not amc that possession or rhe said ;'ff;JJ"1,i:Tff:"i::H:; and registering the case by suppressing the materiat facts about the ownership and possession of the property would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this court under Section 4g2 Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A_1 and A-2."

8. He also relied upon the decision in Mr. Suttan Ahmed Khan's case (2 supra), wherein the petitioner was a co_sharer in the ancestral property. Thus, it was held that: "Havrng regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the petitroners herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.10of2012, wherein Smt. Razia Fazat Khan, Asad Ahmed Khan, Riaz Ahmed Khan and others are shown as 4 defendants and the 1st petrtioner is the 1st ptaintiff. The .l"r petitioner also filed I.A No.46 of 2012 along with the suit, wherein the trial Court granted injunction order in favour oF the petitioners therein, restraining the respondents/de fendants therein from alienating the suit schedule properties. The property mentioned in the present complaint and in the suit sch edule properties are one and the same. When petitioners herern are claiming share in the property, it cannot be said that they trespassed into the land of 2nd respondent. The averments do not constltute any of the offences alleged against the petttioners. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.,, ) ETO.J Cd.P. No.l0710 ol 2025

9. ln the present case, the petitioners are the L :gal Advisor and Director of M/s. Balagi Energy Private Limitec, a company which has purchased the entire first floor of the propt> ty belonging to the land owners vtde registered sale deed datetl

05.12.2022. Thus, they are required to attend the office and vis t the building every day. Thus, they need to have some allotted pa -king area in the stilt area of the commercial complex. The alle led incident occurred in the stilt area, between the Watchman c I the building and the petitioners herein. The allegation against th€, :etitioners is that they have broken the boom barrier and lhreatenec the Security guards. While the contention of the petitioners is tr rt they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the sil J area along with the first floor eversince the time of purchase i.: in the year 2022, but the de faclo complainant herein has sta 1ed causing problems to them. ln the earlier round of litigation a ;ivil suit vtde O.S. No.1728 of 2014 was filed for perpetual injur :tion by the developer-de facfo complainant against the owners which was contested by them and they have also filed ano:l er suit vlde O.S.No.1749 of 2014. Subsequently, during the per iency of the said proceedings, interlocutory applications were file( by both the parties which were disposed of by a common order t irecting both 6 ETD,J c.l P. No 10710 0t 2025 I-\--'-"-n \r '.1 the parties to park their vehicles in their respective shares of the property. Aggrieved by the said order, the developer has filed a CMA in which the ill Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court has made a temporary arrangement pending triar in the main suit and disposed of the CMA. Being assured by the order dated 30.08.2015, the parties did not pursue the suits and both the suits were dismissed for non_prosecution. Subsequenfly, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the parking lot along with their area in the first floor. But, however, again the developer started troubling them and fired another suit yrde o.S. No.5347 of 2023 and l.A .No.772 ot 2023 and obtained ex patte injunction order. Thus, they have filed a vacate stay petition and ultimately, the injunction apprication was dismissed and the order of interim injunction was vacated. Thereupon, the Developer filed CMA No.65 of 2024 on the file of the Xl_Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court and the same was dismissed on merits. Following the said dismissar order' the Deveroper has started troubring the residents of the building in one way or the other. Thus, their contention is that the present case is fired with farse ailegations, having faired on the civil side, the Developer has come with the criminal litigation to harass the petitioners herein. Thus, it is elicited that the parties have been pursuing civir ritigation over the said stirt area. rt is 7 Efo,.t C.t P No.10U0 ot 2025 pertinent to be observed in this regard that the case as closed as 'r civil in nature following the investigation, but howeverr pursuant to the protest petition, the case was taken cognizance lt rfore the trial cou rt.

10. ln view of the pending civil litigation and tho earlier round of litigation on civil side, it is clear that there have i:.'en disputes with regard to the parking area between the owners : the land on one side and the Developer on the other. The petitione -s herein are the Financial Advisor and Director of the Company ruhich is the owner of the first floor of the Commercial Complex The record does not reveal that the prosecution could collect arl material to prove the offences against the petitioners. t I '1 1. Thus, in the light of the decisions cited abovr and in view of the above held discussion, the continuation of the croceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process cf law.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allo'r-'d and the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.'l and 2 in C(l No.39g2 of 2025 on the file of the l-Additional Chief Judicial ! agistrate at Hyderabad, including the order dated 'l 9.04.2025 in Crl.M p. \ 8 EfD J ctt.P. No.10fa0 012025 .- \.F"q \l \ (-\ No.378 of 2025 in Crime No.379 ot 2024 in CC No.39B2 of 2025, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SO/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR /, /.)-\-/ SECTION OFFICER To, \ \ '1. The I Additional Chief Judicral Magistrate at Hyderabad 2. The Station House Offlcer. SaiOaOaO potrce Siatron, iyOerabad Drstrict. 3. One CC to SRt NOMOS VTSTAS THE LAWYERS nOJocate 1OpUC1 4. One CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE to C Ruthwik ReOOy, ROvocate 5. Two CCs to PUBLTC pRO loPUCl ICUTOR, Hrgh Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies. CHRKPSL HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 I ORDER CRLP.No.10740 of 2025 .rt' .\ \. _. t\ 10 ir 206 : I \ ,,, i)r r.,i "l CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. d.-