The High Court · 2025

i;Srlf?lt[,. Slo^P.Muthyatu, Age 53 years, Occ. private Service, R/o.H.No No.36, Flat No.205, Srikrishna residency, D D Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 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 cc No. 9526 of 2021 on the file of lx Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as against the petitioners herein. ... Respondents/Complainant NO: I F 2021 Petition under section 482 ot cr.p.e praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of oriminal petition, the High court may be..pleased to grant stay of a[ further proceedings incruding af,pearance of petitioners in cc No.9526 of 2o21 , pending on thL file of t{edditional chiet Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Eranki Phani Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No..1 and of Sri S. Nyaya Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER r4 TTIE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9743 of2O2l ORDER: This Crimina-l Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal pfocedure, .1973 (for short, .the Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9526 of 2O2l on the frle of the IX Additiona-l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 44a, 38O and 422 read with 34 of the Indiarl Penal Code, 186O (for short, .the IpC,).

2. Brief facts of the case: Respondent No.2/de facto cornplainant lodged a private complaint stating that the petitioner is the granddaughter of late Pasharn Chittaraiah, who was original owner of land admeasurin g 2016 sq. yards in Sy.No.S4. Under a registered Will dated O8.O2.1983, the petitioner bequeathed 151 sq. rneters of land and stre has been possession since 1987 ie., after dernise of pasham Chittaraiah, who died on 3l.O | .Iga7. By a partition among the family mernbers, dated 19.02.198a, plot No.4 allotted to the petitioner. Later, the petitioner under a registered Gift Deed dated 23.09.2015, she conveyed it to her daughter 2 and her narne was rnutated in the reverrlle rt:cords and also she secrlred water and electricity connectiorls in her name' Later, he fi.led O.S. No.9OO of 2013 for perrtition without impleading the petitioner, leading to her fiJe impleadment petition. Due to repeated threats ancl interference, complaints were lodged before police by the: petitioner and her daughter. The daughter of the petiti:ner hled O'S' No.32O/2Oi9 for perpetual injunction ald obtained ad interirn relicf, and also W.P. No.38972 of 2018 before this Court against GHMC regarding encroachrrients, in which GHMC assured action. Meanwhile, he Iiled 'i/'P' No'1561 of 2019 questioning the action of the GHMC offrcials with regard to dcrnolition of sheds, arraying thc petitioner and her dar-rghter as respondents. Amidst these proceedings, hc filed the private cornplaint d'ated 28 .O2.2Cr 19 allegrng the petitioner and. others criminal trespassed, 'lestroyed CCTV camera, darnaged the sheds, theft of 16 tulas of silver and two tulas of gold chain, cloths, mat, kitchen r.tensils and some cash having more than Rs.4,OOO/- ar:-d the sarne was registered as Crime No.25O of 2019 of Chikkadapally Police Station, Hyderabad. The police after conducting investigation frled charge sheet and the IX Additional Chief .) Metropolitan Magistratq, Hyd,brabad, ta_ken cogni zance antd. the same was numbered as ClC.No.9S26 of 2O2I.

3. Heard Mr. E. phani Ktimar, learned counsel for the petitioner through video confbrence, Mr. S. Nyaya Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant pr.rblic prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. l-State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the etitioner:

4.1. Learned cor-rnsel submitted that the petitioner has not cornrnitted any offence and she was falsely implicated in the present crime. He further sUbmitted that the petitioner,s grandfather, narneiy pasham Chittaraiah, who was the absolute owner ald possesspr of the land admeasuring 2016 sq, yards in Sy.No.S4 situated at Domalguda, Gagan Mahal of Hyderabad, had executed a registered Will Deed docr.ment No.6 of 1983, dated Og.O2.19g3, bequeathing 1 5 1 sq. yards in her favour and other portions to other farnily rnernbers, being his gfandsons. After his deattr, through ora-l partition, plot Nb.4 adrneasuring 273.33 sq. yards, was a,llotted in favour of the petitioner and other plot Nos.l, 2, 3 and 5 were allotted to other farnilv mernbers. 4 The petitioner has executed a registered gift settlement deedinrespectofherpropertyadrneasuring2T3.33sq. yard.s. in favour of her dar-rghter' narnely A' I(eerthana'' 4.2. Hefurther subrnitted that respondenr' No'2 filed sr.it in O,S.No.9OO of 2013 before the XI Additio oal Chief Judge' CitY Civil Court, HYderabad' seeking pzLrtition, without In ttre said imPteading the Petitioner as a Party defend ant' applcation seeking ar1 the Petitioner and the, said aPPlication suit, impleadmcnt as a P arty defendant was allowed and the said su.it is Pending' 4.3. He further sr:'bmitted that the <laugtrter of the petitioner has also filed' sr'rit in O'S'No'3IZO of 2OL9 before Court, ()itY Civil Court' ttre V Senior Civil injunction, wherein ad Hyderabad, seeking in I.A.i\lo'55 of 2Ol9 on inteirn injunction was granted respondent No'2 and otleers from Ol.O2.2Ol9 against interfering with trer possession and the: said sr:.it is also perpetual Judge's pending.

4.4. He Petitioner further submitted that the has hled W'P'No'38972 of daughter of ttre 2Ol8 agair:st the cHMC ofhcials and her neighbouring land owners, qrrestioning the inaction of GHMC offici als in removing the -,,../l ,.2 5 encroach''ent of road and rQstore the same a,d a,lso cover the drainage manholes and that this Court granted interim order on 06.11.2018 directing respondent Nos.2 to 5_ GHMC ofhcials to initiate appropriate action, if there is any violation of law and the said Writ petition is pending. 4.5. He further subrnitted t$at respondent No.2 also frled W.P.No.1561 of 2Ot9 questioning the GHMC ofhcial in dernolishing the structures/sheds on his plot No.1 without following due process of law, lvherein the petitioner and her daughter were shown as respondent Nos.6 and,7, and the said writ petition is also pendirrg.

4.6. When ttre above said c4ses are pending, respondent No.2 lodged a private cornplairlt orr 2g.O2.2O19 alleging that the petitioner, her daughter and others entered into his property and damaged CCTV eamera and sheds and stoien gold and silver ornaments and cash and other rnaterial and the said complaint was referrqd to the plice ald the police registered the sarne as Ctirne No.2SO of 2OIg on 27 .O7 .2OL9. The Investigatirlg Offrcer has issued notice under Section 41_A of the Cr.p.C. to the petitioner and others. The peLitioner submitted detailed explanation. However.r=.,,the Investigating Off,rcer w'ithout properly 6 conducting investigation filed the ctrarge sheet on

27.O7.2019 against the petitioner and accus;ed No.4 for the offences r-rnder Sections 448, SaO ar-d 427 read with 34 of the IPC.

4.7 . He further subrnitted ttrat even according to the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, do not constitute any offence and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present crirne to dissolve tee civil disputes which are pending before ttre cornpetenl, Courts. The nature of the allegations ievelled against t.he petitioner is civil in nature. Hence, the ingredients und(3r Sections 448, 38O and 427 read with 34 of the IPC ale not attracted against the petitioner.

4.8. He further submitted that respondent No.2 himself approached this Cor.rrt and hled W.P.No.156 1 of 2Ol9 on 22.O1.2OL9, wherein he specifically mentioned t}- at the GHMC officia,ls dernolished the sheds. Af1-er lapse of one rnonth, respondent No.2 hled a false complaint on 2a.O2.2Ot9 with very sarne allegatior s against ttre petitioner and others that they trespassed into his property, d.amaged CCTV carnera ald sheds. w 7

4.9. He further submitted (hat the allegations in the cornplaint and the allegatio4s rnade in W.P.No.156 1 of 2Ol9 pertaining to the very sarne property. Respondent No.2 with an intention to dissqlve the civil disputes frled the present cornplaint with false 4.nd frivolous allegations and the sarne is clear abuse qf the process of law and C.C.No.9526 of 2O2l is liable to be quastred 5 Subrnissions of learne6 counsel No.2 for resoondent

5.1 . Per corltra, learned coirnsel subrnitted that even according to the petitioner, shd got 151 sq. rneters: 180.60 sq. yards through registered Will Deed dated O8.O2.1983 said to have been executed by her grandfather. However, the petitioner executed registered gift settlernent deed dated 2g.Og.2Oi,5 in favour of her da,ughter to an extent of 273.33 sq. yards witholrt having any rpanner of right.

5.2. He further subrnitted that the sr].bj ect propert5r covered by Sy.No.54 is not d.iizided into metes and bounds arnong ttre family rnembers. Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.9OO of 2013 before ltft" Ctti"f Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking phrtition and allotrnent of the 8 shares arrd delivery of possession of the respective partles and the sarne is Pendirtg' 5 .3 . He further submitted that the fattrer o I respondent No.2 also filed suit in O'S'No'755 of 2O1O before the II Additional chief Judge, city civil co'rts ar Hyderabad' seeking declaration declaring trim as t?re atlsolrrte owner and possessor of the sr.it schedule property i'e' Plot No' 1 in Sy.No.54 admeasr'rrin g 296 sq' yards ancL also sought perpetual injunction a gainst ttre defendants 1-herein' ln the said suit, respondent No'2 is also a party defendant and same is Pending' ttrerein in

5.4 . He fi.rtkrer sr'rbmitted that tkre da'rrghter of ttre petitioner approached ttris Court and frl ed' \V'P'No'38972 of 21:ra qrrestioning ttre inaction of C HMC offrcials- removing tkre respondent Nos'2 to 5 encroachments made by respondent Nos'6 to 9' ln ttre said writ petition also' respondent No'2 is impleaded as a party respondent and the said writ petition is pending' 5.5. He furttrer submitted ttrat the a1lt:gations made in W.P.No.1561 of 2ol9 and the relief souglrt therein and ttre the present complaint dated allegations made in T he lrLvestigating Officer / 28.o2.26is are totally different. Th. I''.,"=..*; i I t i t ---",a# I after conducting investigation and by recording the statements of the witnesseq i.e., LWs.2 to 4, who watchmarr and neighbours, Iiled the charge sheet. The witnesses in their statements specilically mentioned the role of the petitioner and others that they trespassed into the property clairned by respondent No.2 and darnaged CCTV carnera and sheds and taken out kitchen utensils and other bags belonging to LW.2.

5.6. He further submitted thqt the mere pendency of civil cases and writ petitions is not e ground to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.95J6 of 2021, especially when there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner arrd ingredients rlnder Sections 3gO, 422 and 448 of the IPC are attracted. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence, the crimina_l petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Analysis

6. This Court considered the riva-l subrnissions made by the respective parties a,d perused the rnateriar availabre on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are sister and brother. The record reveals that the father of respondent No.2 filed sr.rit in O.S.No.755 I I 10 of 2O7O before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, seeking to declare hirn as absolute owner of the suit schedule property arLd a-lso perpetual injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, respondent No.2 hirnself was irnplearied as a party defendant and the said suit is pending.

7. The record further reveals that resp,ondent No.2 liled suit in O.S.No.9OO of 2Ol3 on the hle of Chicf Ji.rdge, City Civil Court, Hydcrabad, seeking partitiorl and separate possession of "A" to "G" scheduled properties and E-schedule property pertaining to plot l,lo.1 in Sy.No.S4 admeasuring 296 sq. yards. In respect of E_schedule property, the father of respondent No. _Z filed a suit in O.S.No.755 of 201O seeking to declare him as an absolute owner and the same is pending. a. The record also reveals that the daughter of the petitioner hled one suit in O.S.No.32O of 2OIg before V Senior Civit Jr.rdge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, lor grant of perpetual injrrnction against respondent No.2 and others and the said suit is pending. Further, she frled W.P.No.38972 of 2OL8 questioning the ir-raction of GHMC officials-rcspondent Nos.2 to 5 removing the ./ rL I1 encroachments that has rnade by respondent Nos.6 to 9 therein. In the said writ petition, this Court directed respondent Nos.2 to 5 to initiate appropriate action, if there is any violation of law and the sarne is pending. The record further revea-ls that respondent No.2 frled W.P.No. 156 1 of 2019 questioning the action of GHMC oflicials-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in demolishing the stmctures/sheds laid in plot No.1 and the same is pending.

9. The core contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 himself approached this Corrrt and Iiled W.P.No.1561 of 2Ol9 on 22.C-1.201,9 that the GHMC ofhcials have demolished the structures/ sheds belonging to hirn and later on f1led a false cornplaint on 24.02.2O79 with very sarne allegations against the petitioner and others that they trespassed and darnaged CCTV camera and sheds and the sarne is contrarSz to his own averrnents in pending writ petition. Whereas, ttre contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the allegations rnade in the writ petition and the allegations made in the cornplaint dated 2a.O2.2O19 both are different and distinctive.

10. On a pemsal of the afhdavit frled in support of t2 W.P.No.156 1 of 2Ol9 in paragraph No.12, it reveals that the petitioner rnade allegations that C'HMC offrcials dernolished the structures / sheds on 29 ' lt' '2O 18 witLrout giving any prior notice, whereas in the'prrvate complaint lodged by respondent No.2 dated 2a.O2'2019' it is rnentioned that on 16.02.2019 at 8.3O p.m' the petitioner along with others entered into the premises and darnaged CCTV carnera which was put up in his land and darnage<l skreds and. they have taken out the valuablc: gold and silver ornaments and kitchen utensils belc'nging to his watchman. Respondent No.2 rnade allega [ion against the petitioner in respect of the incident which 'vas occttrred on 16.02.2019. whereas the allegations made in tLre writ petition against the GHMC officials pertaining to the incident dated 29.12.20 18.

11. On perusa-l of the staternent of LW.2-watchman, she stated that the petitioner along with others entered into the premises occurred on 16.02.2C.19 and darnaged the CCTV c€unera and sheds and taken out her kitc hen utensils and other bags from the shed. LWs.3 and 4, who are neighbours, also stated that the petitioners and oth er persons entered into the prernises and darnaged CCTV 13 carnera and sheds and thrown out the kitchen utensils of the watchrnan.

12. Whether the petitioner had entered into premises ald darnaged CCTV carnera and sheds and committed theft, as alleged in ttre complaint ald whether the staternents made by LWs.2 to 4 are true or false, have to be revealed during the course of trial only,

13. It is relevant to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya I(urnar G.S.r, the Hon,ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the sane set of facts may give rise to both civil and crirt'rinal proceedings, ald ttrat availing a civil rernedy does not bar the initiation of crirninal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agaywal v. Sto1e of W.B. and, Trisuns Chemicol Industry v. Rajesh Agorwal, to reiterate that crirninal proceedings cannot be quashed rnerely becamse a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify qqashing crirninal proceedings, especially where ttre allegations disclose a prirna facie criminal offence. The Court gbserved that many acts of I (2ozo) 14 scc 552 t4 cheating occur in the context of cornmerc al or financial transactions, and such a'civil profrle" does rrot strip tl, e act of its 'crirninal outht." The Court also reft rred to State of I laryona v. Ilhaian Lal and' Rojesh Boiai 'v' State @Cf of Delhi) which held that quashing of FIRs ttndt:r Section 482 ' Cr.P'C.shorrldbelimitedtorareandexcelltionalcases.It ernphasized that just because a transaclion involves a commercia) or rnonctary element that alonc is not a ground toruleor.rtcriminalintentorproceedings.Ultimately,the CourtconcludedthattheHighCourthaderredinquashing the criminerl proceedings, stressing that crirninal cases rnust proc(:ed as per the Cr'P'C' and c:rnnot be halted solely due to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or authoritv of the civil forurn' It is trite 1:'w that the mere between the civil cases and writ Petitlons not bar to invoke crirni na-l allegations disclose the cornmission of a parties does pendency ol jurisdiction, provided the cognizable oflence. 14. In Sau. I{atnala Shivaji Pokarnekar v' The State of Maharastrtra & Ors.2, the Hon'lole Apex Cr>urt held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Ct 'P'C' has to be 'z (2019),f4 scc 3so exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, w.ith caution, only to prevent abuse of process qr to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genulne prosecution, but [."y be ?pplied where ttre allegations in the complaint, taken at face va_lue, do not disclose the basic ingredientg of any offence. The case on hand is not the rarest of rane cases to exercise powers of this Court under Section 4E2 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9526 of 2Cr21.

15. For ttre foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9526 of 2o2 1 against the petitioner pending on the frle of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan f4agistrate, Hyderabad.

76. Accordingly, the crimipa-l petition is dismissed. However, taking into consi<fleration t]re fact that the petitioner being a woman aged about 55 years and she is an employee, her presence in C.C.No.9lc26 of 2Ct21 is dispensed with, unless her prqsence is specifically required subject to the condition that $he petitioner shall represent thror-rgh her counsel on each alnd every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of ttle petitioner on the specific date so f,rxed by the trial Court for her appearance, the trial 16 Court is entitled to proceed witLr the rnatter in accordance with 1aw. It is needless to observe th at any of the observations mad.e in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this case and the trial Court shall decide the rnatter basing upon ttre evidence, whieh is going to be adduccd by either of the parties, in accordar ce with law' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shal1 stand closed. SD/, AHMEi ABDULLAH KHAN ANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The lX Additional Chief Metropolitan /agistrate' Hyderabad 2. The Station uouse otticer, Chikkadapaliy Police Station, Hyderabad City 3. Two CCs to Public Pro.""uio'' High bourt for the State of Telangana at 4. il;ec-t"tti rr"nt i Phani Kumar, Advocate [oPUc] 5. One CC to Sri S. Nyaya Murthy, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUTI M ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 2910812025 ORDER CRLP.No.9743 ot 2021 -iHE S it /\ Y (-) L + \ [ ! srP 2!i5 t t n,.-- ':1.1 .:," ,'- -.r ,.'- ,'i.'';" ,.i..' DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION