The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High court at Hyderabad. 2- Mohammed Me!1aj Khan, S/o. Late Qasim Khan, Aged 53 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o.H.No.8-4-4821 1, Erragadda, Sanathnagir, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO- COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 8 in C.C.No.360/2017 paring on the fite of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Kukatpalty, Cyberabad. a This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of- Grounds of crirrinal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri c Hari Preeth, Advocaie for the Petitioner and sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the state for Respondent No. 1 and Sri c. Sharan Reddy Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.S151 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is iiled under Sectio n 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to B, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.36O of 2OI7, pending on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, kukatpally, Cyberabad, for the offences. punishabie under Sections 448, 427, 323, and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penai Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor lor respondent No.1 - State.

3. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 15.03.2017, before the Sanath Nagar Police, alleging that he is the owner of property bearing H.No.B-4-482/ l, Erragadda, Sanathnagar. The said property was gifted by his mother in the year 1996. Thereafter, his mother died in the year 2001, and later, his brother viz., Shahid Khan, also died in the year

2005. Respondeht No.2 provided shelter to accused Nos.7 and 8, who are respectively, the wife and daughter of his ) elder brother/Shahid Khan. On 15.O3.2O17, the relatives of accused Nos.7 and 8, who are accused Nos. I to 6, criminally trespassecl into the house of tlre de facto complainant, abused hinr and his family members, and threatened them with dire consequences. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint )oclged on 15.O3.2017, Police filed a charge-sheet on 26.O3.21)17

4. Background of the case is that, respondent No.2 filed O.S.No. 165 of 2Ol7 and obtained interim order on 02.O2.2O17. 'lhe Civil Court passed a docket order directing respondent No.2 and accused Nos.7 and 8 to be ready with the matter. and the order of the status quo, which was I granted on 02.O2.2077, was vacated on 08.03.2017.

5. The present complaint was filed on 15.03.2017. On the said day, no orders of the civil Court were pending in favour of respondcnt No.2 to show that respondent No.2 was the owner of the subject property. After Iiling the complaint on

15.03.2017, the case was taken up by the Civil Court. By detailed orrler dated 27.03.2012, the learned District Judge, found that respondent No.2/plaintiff therein did not have ar.y pima facie case in his favour in respect of the property in which Accused Nos.7 and B were staying. Accordingly, temporary injunction was denied.

6. The civil proceedings are not in dispute. On

02.O2.2OI7, Civil Suit was filed v2., O.S.No.165 of 2O1Z and, interim order of status quo, was obtained by respondent No.2. The said order of status quo was vacated on

08.03.2017. As discussed, the Civil Court clid not find a pima facie case that respondent No.2 owned the subject property and refused to grant interim injunction, by the detailed order on 27.O3.2O77.

7. In the absence of any proof that the subject property was either in the exclusive possession of the de facto complainant or that it belongs to accused Nos.7 and B, the question oi the petitioners trespassing into the property does not arise. Admittedly, petitioners/ accused Nos.7 and B were ! I staying in the said property. B. Though it is alleged that the de facto complainant was threatened by accused, it is no where specifically mentioned 4 how the zLccused threatened lhe de facto cornplainant. Further, th,rugh the allegation of beating is made against the accused, tY,.e de facto cornplainant did not file any evidence to show that he was treated by any Doctor to believe that any injuries were caused by accused Nos.1 to 6. The present criminal complaint was flied one year after the Civil Court vacated th€ status quo order on O8.03.2O17. The complaint was apparently made to coerce settlement in civil dispute.

9. ln vierv of the above reasons, the proceedings against I the petitiorrers / accused Nos. 1 to 8 in C.C.No.360 ol 2Ol7 , pending o r the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, kukatpaily, Cyberabad, are quashed. Accordingll', the Criminal Petitior-L is a1lowed. Miscelianeous Petitions, pending if any, shalJ stand closed. sd/- A. AS REENIVASA REDDY STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ oT

1. The XXIV [,4etropolitan IVagistrate Court, $ECTION OFFICER rabad at Kukatpalty, Rangarec dy District. Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad,

3. One CC to Sri. C Hari Preeth, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. C Sharan Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. PSK/DL {- HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 ORDER CRLP.No.B151 of 2019 oR iHE s l-4 14: :7 J ,) t \{\ 20JUN M '9 ,i' z a \ )^st, J'Ta' ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION C\a 7ro