The High Court · 2025

3. Mr. Mamidala Surya Prakash, (Correct Name S/o. M. Rajulu, Aged about. 41 All are Ryo. H.No 2-3-7o3l2lBl'l1501118, Hyderabad. Mamidala Surya Vara Prasad) Years, occ. Business, Maruthi Nagar, Amberpet, ...Petitaoner/Accused No.1 to 3 AND 1 The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Srinivas Murthy, S/o. Murthy Aged about. 40 Years, Occ. Authrise person of Shakar Math, Resident of Vidya Nagar, Amberpet, New Nallakunata, Hyderabad-500054. .Respondents Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 F.l.R No.215 of 2025 dated 01-08-2025 of PS Nallakunta pending on lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Criminal Courts, at Nampally, Hyderabad. the Court of the file of -ry /,/ l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petrtion under Section 528 of B.N S.S. praying that in f I circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cflmrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay a further proceedings in F lR No.215 of :t( 25 dated 01-08- 2025 of PS Nallakunta pending on the file of the Court of the l! Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Criminal Courts, at Nampally, Hy j rabad, pending drsposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petitron comrng on for hearing, upon perusing th() Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tho arguments of Sri Syed Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr; Shalini Saxena, Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondenl \o.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12108 OF 2025 Between:

1. Mr Marnidala RaJUlu, S/o. M Swamy, A/a. 75 Years, Ocl Sharada Enterprrses,

2. Mr. t\4amidala Trilok (Correct Name Mamidala Trilok Sunc € fua. 45 Years, Occ Business.

3. Mr Mamrdala Suvarma Murthy, S/o. M Rajulu, Aged Occ. Private Employee, 4 Mr Mamrdala Surya Prakash, (Correct Name . Mamidala :j S/o. M. Ralulu, Aged about. 41 Years, Occ Business, All i 703l2lBl 1 I 50l 1 18, Maruthi Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. Propritor of M/s. ) S/o. M. Rajulu, bout 44 Years, rya Vara Prasad) .e R/o. H.No.2-3- ...Petitioner/Ac(:r sed No.1,2,6 & 7 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prose. rtor High Court at Hyderabad

2. Konapur Krishna Rao, S/o Late Narayana Rao, Aged lbout. 74 Years, Occ. Branch Head Shankar Math, Fyo. H. No.1-8-703/2/1 c 4. Shankar Math OU Road, Nallakunata, Hyderabad-500054. Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in t e circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the l- gh Court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the procee(li rgs against the Petitioners/Accused No 1, 2, 6 and 7 in FtR No.231 ot 2024 d;t )d OStO6t2O24 ot ...Respondents PS Nallakunta pending on lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 the file of the Court Magistrate Criminal Courts, at of the Nampally, Petition under Sechon 528 of B.N.S S 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 F.l.R No.23'l of 2024 dated 05-06-2024 of PS Nallakunta pending on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Chief Mekopolitan Magistrate Criminal Courts, at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitton and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BI-E SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA t EVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12106 and 121)) of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.'1 2106 of 2025 is filecj i / the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceeci )gs against them in Crime No215 of 2025 on the file of Nallakurrl r Police Slation, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sec;l ons 329(4), 352, 351(2) and 133 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short'BNS'); and Criminal Petition No.12'1 08 of 2025 is filed :l the petitioners- accused Nos 1, 2, 6 and 7 seeking to quash t,r ) proceedings in Crime No.23'1 of 2024 on the file of Nallakurrl I Police Station. Hyderabad, registered for the offences under S( ctions 420, 467, 468,471,474, 477-A and 506 lPC.

2. Since the petitioners in both the 1 etitions and the subject matter in both the petitions are one ar r the same, both these petitions are disposed of by this common orc rr

3. Heard Mr.Syed Ashfaq Ahmed, learrrr d counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and l\4s.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent Nc. I-State 2 ETD'J Crl.P. Nos.12106 & 12108 o12025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter is purely of civil nature and the petitioners are facing false allegations that they have created lease deeds and collected loans from the tenant and further that they have intimidated the other tenants. He further submitted that the petitioner No.1 in Crl P. No.12108 ot2025 is tenant under a lease with the Trust i.e the de facto complainant and there is no other relationship between both of them. An eviction suit was filed by the Trust, which got compromised. Subsequently, the present complaint is filed with a malafide intention to evict the petitioners and to strike a deal. He further submitted that the petitioners have filed O.S. No 4264 of 2025 and have obtained status quo order pursuant to which these complaints are filed as a counter blast. Ever since then, the police are harassing the petitioners and under the guise of these complaints, the de facto complainant is forcing petitioner No.1 and his sons to sign on the agreement according to their own terms and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that petitioners in Crl.P. No.12108 ot 2025 have tress-passed into the land and created lease deed and the petitioners in Crl.P. No.12106 \zozs have trespassed into the land and caused obstruction to the It i 1 I w I i L ) \ 3 ETD,J C .P. A. 1.12106 & 12108 of2025 construction of a new building, which is being const' rcted as per the sanctioned plan and created nuisance by entering ir lo the premises with criminal force and threatened them with dire cor sequences. He further has submitted that since the prima facie ce se is made out against the petitioners, the proceedings against t rem cannot be quashed and hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions

6. Perused the record

7. Admittedly, the petitioners are the less€ 3s under the de facto complainant Trust. Pendency of the suit i.e l.S No.4264 of 2023 shows that there is civil dispute between k cth the parties. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners clainr ; that there is an order granted by the trial court in favour of the p,,{i{i66s1s, it is a slatrrs quo order which imposes a responsibility on both the parties equally to maintain stalus quo with regard tc t ^ : suit schedule property. However, the allegations point oul p ima facie case against the petitioners in Crl.P. No.12106 o'f 202t; for the offences under Sections 329(4), 352, 351(2) and 133 ol t NS and for the offences under Sections 420,467,468.471,472. 477-A and 506 IPC against the petitioners in Crl.P. No.1010t of 2025. The investigation is still in progress. Hence, this Cour. s not inclined to interlere with the said process. Though the learnr: I counsel for the 4 ETD,J C.l.P. Nos.12106 s, 12108 of 2OZs petitioners contends that the matter is civir in nature and can be pursued by civil remedies in a civir court, the creation of documents involves criminarity and thus, it cannot be herd as a ground to quash the proceedings as per the decision in Kathayayini v. Sidharth p.S. Reddy and othersl.

8. Hence, in the light of the above said decision and in view of the above herd discussion, the criminar petitions rack merit and hence, both the petitions are disnrissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed sd/- SREENIVAS TAN ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The lV Additional Chief Mekopolitan Magistrate Cri Hyderabad. ECTION OFFICER Courts, at Nampally,

2. The Station House Omcer, Nallakunata Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri. Syed Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. I ! . YJR Y{ ' 2025 scc OnLine SC .1428 HIGH COURT DATED:07/1O12025 COMMON ORDER I ,j t: t i.' a) :i'i.r ,: , irllu Mi "€ s r,r',i 6. t '\i.:-.---- r \-1 CRLP.Nos.12106 AND 12108 of 2025 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIO]. S. ."tqub g S"