The High Court · 2025

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 stay all further proceedings in CC.No.486312021 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad (Old CC No.820/2017 on the file of lX Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally, Cyberabad) in so far as the petitioners heretn (accused Nos.2 & 3 therein) are .-!,, rcerned including their appearance, pending disposal of CRLP No. 12021 , \. NO: 20F 2022 petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances "rcriri.rr'o"tition.the High court mav be rr,,iyrp* cyberabad to serve stated in the Memorand'm. ot Grou.rJs pleased to direct the stalion +rorr"- oni""u, notices in the above Crl p No. rzoil-"p"" '*".r"ri",r, "'e3' Nos.2 and 3 herein ororr#,. jur,B?il;T,rn^ on for hearins. upon perusins the Memorandum of ,.n9 upon hearrng_ the arguments of sRl. J. ". "f i.'-i,Ii Tl JlHi ftf if E,tiifl lX; ffk:i, :i lll s.^f^"lit'ion 'RABHAKAR ' : : m: ;,,1 "ffi The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL P ETITION No .202 ot 2022 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC No.4863 of 2O21 on the fite of Vlil Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

2. The brief facts of the case as per defacto complainant are that the petitioners herein/accused Nos.2 and 3, on 20.12.2015 in collusion with accused No..l , came to her flat abused her in filthy language to vacate the said flat and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the Miyapur police Station, which was registered in crime No .121 of 2016 1or the offences punishable under sections 504, 506 of lndian penal Code.

3. Heard Mr.J.prabhakar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of ltir.Aziz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt S.li/adhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. perused the record. 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitionerNo'2isthefatherofpetitionerNo.,lhereinandheisthe \ absoluteowneroftheflatindispute'Thedefactocomplainant wasthetenantandshealongwithherhusbandresidedinthe said flat on lease and paid the rents upto January 201 6 and committeddefaultfromol0320l6andduetomatrimonial proceedings against the defacto complainant and her husband' the 2nd respondent obtained residential protectlon order for residing in the suit schedule, which is the flat in dispute herein and the 3'd respondent herein stopped visiting 2nd respondent herein and on noticing the same, the petitioner/accused No 2 sent termination notice on 18.11.2015 to vacate and to handover the flat by December, 2015 on the ground of bonafide requirement' but they failed to vacate the premises and the petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit vide o.s.No.928 0f 2016 0n the file of Vlll Senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar for eviction of defendantsthereinfromsuitschedulementionedpropertyand thetrialCourtdecreedthesaidsuitvidejudgmentanddecree dated 04.06 2018 and by way of E P No 39/2018 on 10'12'20'18' he took possession of the property. He further submitted that this is a counter blast case to the said civil dispute and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash the pro&edings against the petitioners herein 3 5, Learned Assistant Public prosecutor submitted that lhere are specific allegations against the petitioners and prayed to dismrss the petition.

6. A perusal of the material placed on record shows that the petitioners/accused Nos 2 and 3, who are son and father are lhe owners of the property and lhe trial Court has decreed the suit directing the defendants therein to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of judgment and accordingly execution was also made. lt is apparent from the charge sheet that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and a criminal colour has been given to a civil dispute. lt is only a counter blast case filed by the defacto complainant with respect to the termination notice issued by the petitioner/accused No.2 to vacate the flat.

7. ln the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhandl, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: (2013)11SCC673 -l! \ 4 "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Secllon 482 of the Code the High Couft has to be cautious. This power /s Io be usec) sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing al:use of the process of any court or othenuise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint drsc/oses a criminal offence or not deperrds upon the nature of facts alleged therein Whether essenfia/ ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Couft must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a crvil nature is given a cloak of -'crintinal offence. tn such a situation. if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in thrs case, the High Couft should not hesitate to quash lhe crirninal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of lhe coui.' (emphasis suppled)

8. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed. \ \ \_, - I 5 o Accordingly, this Criminat petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.4B63 of 2021 on the file of the learned Vlll Additional lVletropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed closed Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I '1. The Vlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kuk 2. The Station House Officer, Miyapur police Statron 3. Two CCs to the Pubtic prosecutor, High Court for 4. One CC to SRI. AZ|Z HUSSATN Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) a ally, Cyberabad , Cyberabad the State of Telangana at Io, PM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 ORDER '/. -:, .:'i77 tr L1 () J: c' -i. 1 0 il]l 2025 '., I aRLP.No.202 of 2022 .:J ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION 2b bl$