The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing trr: Mr:morandum of Grounds of criminar pr:tition and upon hearing the argum3nts of Sri KATTKA RAVTNDER REDDy, Advocate for the petitioner and the liri ,rithender Rao Veerama'a, Additionar pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Rrsponcrent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the foltowing: ORDER r '=' gna*EV7 i t I I t t I i I I I ! i I THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITO N No.12007 of2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No 218 of 2024 on the file of Mulugu Police Station, Siddipet District, registered for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(a) of BNS

2. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No '1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter is of civil nature and that the respondent No 2 approached the civil court, but could not obtain any order in his favour and thus, has come up with the present complaint raising false allegation of trespass and assault against the petitioner, He further submitted that the petitioner No.1 has filed a writ petition wherein all further proceedings initiated under 145(1) Cr.P.C. were stayed He therefore, submitted that since the orders in the writ petition are in his favour, launching of criminal proceedings against them based 2 EfO,J cn f'. No 12007 ot ?c25 on false allegattons would not be proper and he rr;e, prayed to quesh the proceedings agarnst the petitioners.

4. The learned Additronal public prosecutor has submttted that the prosr:cr.ttion could record the statements :1 independent witness, out of whom LW.3 is an independent \/r'itness. He therefore, prayecl to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record

6. The contention of the counsel of the petititner rr; that the matter is purery of civir nature. The petitioner No.1 r- as otrrained an ad-interim injunction order on 24.2.202s vlde orders ir r.A. No 82 of 2025in OS. No.40 of 2025 HealsofiledWp Nol647tlof 2024 alleging that the Tahsildar has issued proceedings urrder i 45(1 ) of Cr P.C when the civil suits are pending between boilr the rrarties. lt was held that the petitioner has made out prtrria fzl cie case therefore, the further proceedings initiated by respon,Jent No 4 ie Tahisldar under 145 (i) Cr.p.C. were stayed vicle orde,rs dated 2509.2024 Now, the present complaint is filed alk:ging that on 15.09.2024 at 9.00 hours, one of the villagers informeJ the, de facto complainant on phone that the boundary stones in his land were lying damaged, that on the said day he was at Chenrai and when l i I I I I i i t I I *r7 -) ETO'J CII.P No 12OO7 ol 2025 he visited in the morning hours on 17.O9,2025, he found that the boundary stones are lying broken and that with regard to the said land there are disputes with the adjacent land owner i.e. the petitioner herein. Therefore, there is no eye witness to the alleged rncident. The de facfo complaisant has just mentroned that since there are disputes existing with regard the said land with the adjacent land owners/petitioners, he has lodged complaint to take action against them. The prosecution could record the statements of witnesses out of whom the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that LW.3 is an independent witness. A perusal of the said statement reveals that he is a hearsay witness. Thus, it is made out from the record that no independent witness has been examined in this case. Even according to the contents of the complaint, it is not the case of the de faclo complainant that the petrtioners herein have damaged the boundary stones. He has seen that the boundary stones were broken, but since there were disputes with the adjacent land owners he has lodged the complaint to take action against them. Therefore, in the circumstances, it can be held that there is no material to make oul prima facle case against the petitioners. The allegations are under Sections 329(3) 4 EIO,J (rt P. No.l2001a!7025 i aod 324(4) of tsNS. The said sections are extractoc hereunder for the sake of r,:ference Section 329(3) of BNS

329. Crirninal trespass and house-trespass (1)xxx( (2 ) xxx( (3) Whoever cornmits cnmrnal trespass shall be p.rn shec wrth rmpflsc,nment of either descriptron for a term which ma) extend to three rnonths or with fune whrch may extend to [] /e tholrjand .Lifiees. or w th both Section 324(4) of BNS "324. Mischief : (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xx):x (4) Whoever commrts mischref and thereby car ses loss or dana!,e to the amount of twenty thousand rupees :Lnl mo13 but less tl-an cne lakh rupees shal be punished with mor;onmont of either description for a term which may extend to lvJl years, or wrlh frne. or wlth both

7. Looking into the contents of the complairrt the ingredients of the said offences are not made out, since there is no eye witness on record to say that the petitioners herein have :riminally entered into the land of the de facto complainant and have damaged the boundary stones. Therefore, in the absence of zrny ingredients to attract the alleged offences, the continuation of prrtr;eedings against I i I I I I ; I ) Ef0,.) CrtP.No.120ol ol7a2s the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law. Hence, the petition is entitled to be allowed. B Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.21B of 2024 on the file of It/ulugu Police Station, Siddipet District, are hereby quashed lt/iscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. SRINIVASA RED A SISTANT REG R SECTION OFFICER I To, 1 . The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Gajwel. 2. The Station House Officer, Mulugu Police station, Siddipet District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies r.\ VB/Sa HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER CRLP.No.12007 of 2025 o l-l- ) . r.I i$.B s* \ \ H * e t IJ. *: ...t I cil:f '.r' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I I t i I I t i I I I i : : I J