Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla others v. State of U.p and anotherl, wherein it was held as follows

Santoshi, Wo. Katta Srinivas, Age. 28, Occ. Housewife, R/o.

3. Katta Sriniv_a_s Goud, Age. 45 years, Occ. Mechanic, 17-2-303 Chowni, + 9f! -Katta_ 5. Kaluchi Saty^ala!9ygl1Goud, S/o late Venkataya, Occ. Advocate, Aged. 57, Rio H.No. 24-1047119, New Samathapuri Coiony, New Nagole X"Roads, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 6 Smt Kaluchi Sabitha, W-o K Sa_tyanarayan Goud, Occ. House wife, Aged. 50, R/o H.No. 24-1047119, New Shmathipuri Colony, New Nagole X Ro5Us, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 7 Palle Raglu1-andan Goud, S/o Madhaiya Goud, Age 50yrs, Occ. Electrician, R/o H.No.3-98, Nampally, Tattiannaram, Hyath NagEr, R.ft.District. 8 E Ramalingqn Goud, S/o Balraj Goud, Aged 39 yrs, Occ. Auto Driver, R/o 9 Sm! Sunita, wife of E.Ramalingam Coud, Aged 37 yrs, Occ. House Wife, R/o H.No. H.No.7-80, Dandumailaram, RR Distiict. H.No. H.No.7-80, Dandumailaram, RR District. AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED.No. 1 to 9 1 2 The State of Telangana, represented by its public prosecutor High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. Smt. Bl alitha aliasRajamani, wife of late B.Shankar Goud, Aged about 53 years, Occupation. Petti kirana business resident of House Number. 17- 2- 303, Chowni, Madannapet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Charge Sheet in C_C.No.6252 ot 2021 on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad in the interest of justice- I.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, ttre High Cou( may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.6252 of 2021 on the file of the Vll Additional Chief lr/letropolitan Magistrate at Nanrpally, Hyderabad including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused before the court below in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing thr: Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the Errguments of Sri P radhakrishna, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M Vir ekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.13142 OF 2O2+ JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them registered for the offences under Sections 448 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC'

2. The 2"d respond,ent lodged a private complaint on 22'Ol'2O21 before the VII Additional Chief Metropolital Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, which was referred to the Police Station, Madannapet' for the purpose of investigation and report' Prior to this' a complaintwaslrledbythe2"drespondentonol.ll.2o2oaddressed to the Inspector of Police, Madannapet, which reads as follows: "lnspector of Police, Madannapet P'5, Hgderabod' i, is.totito @ Rajamani wtfe of late SLnnkarial; a-ge: 5o gears' occ: beui Kiraia Bzsiness, Resident of House Number: 17-2 2O3' Choung, Madannapet, do herebg infonn as follott-ts: On 1-11-2O2O at 2.OO p.m mA Aounger si'sters Sabita' Suntta their husbands Satganaragana Ramalingam another Aounger sister's husband. Ragiunondon mA gounger brother Sridhar his uife Ramadeui onith", Aounger brother Siniua's his toife Santoshi come ti mg lnuse and took ott)ag the house documents' The Lnuse stonds in tie name of Stnkntoli (mg father's second tuife) their children came and took a u.tag B.Lalita 9295 701 999)', 2 .i

3. According to the 2"d respondent, since the police did not take any action on her complaint, a private complaint wls filed.

4. In the private complaint, the 2'a respondent made all these petitioners as ,A.1 to ,{9. According to her, she was; running a petty kirana shop in house bearing No.17-2-303, Chovni, Madannapet, Hyderabad, for more thal 25 years and living alolre. The sale deed of the said house, bearing No.259l1989 dated 15.O2.1989, stands in the name of her stepmother and the same is in her custody. Petitioners I and 2 are her stepbrothers and the c ther accused are close relatives. Since there were family disput,:s, all the nine accused/petitioners went to her house on O1.ll.2(t2O at about 2.00 p.m, trespassed into the house and after preparirrg to assault her, wrongfully restrained her. Further, she was criminally intimidated for one hour, and she received grievous hurt at ttre hands of these petitioners. A11 the petitioners further threatened that they would end the life of the 2"4 respondent.

5. On the basis of the complaint hled, the lerrned Magistrate endorsed as follows: 3 " This is a complaint filed bg complainont against A1 to A9 for the ,|pn ". und.er Sections 441, 451, 452, 459, 3-821368, 387 5O6 r/ut ii of IeC, praging to refer the matter to SHO, PS' Madannapet for inueitigatiin aid report under Section 1 56(3) of Cr'P'C ' " '" ' I i

6. The Police, Madannapet, having received the complaint' investigated the case and found that the offences alleged under Sections 441,451,452,459,3a2,36a,387 of IPC were not made ou! however, all the petitioners are liable under Sections 448 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit thattheComplaintwasfrledwithaninordinatedelayofnear|y82 days. Though the complaint was registered for the offences under Sections441,45L,452,45g,382,g68,387,506tlw34oflPC' however, the police found that the petitioners had allegedly committed the offence under Sections 448 and 5o6 r/w 34 of IPC' The said delay has to be looked into, and it is apparent that' on account of the disputes between the family members' a false complaint was filed. 4 -!l

8. Learned counsel relied on the judgment o;.Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & others v. State of U.p and anotherl, wherein it was held as follows; -no -rtot" " lS. It i"s also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case ,;"lib.r;t;; instituted bg him, Respondent 2 seems 'to hor" suppressed the material fact.that a charge_sheet was already filed. in relation to the same incident, against hi^ ori u,ife, pursuant to NCR No. 16o of 2O12 (C1ye N.o_ zss oy zoij fited t,s Appeilant l,s son. No referenrre * , jo)una in the priuate .*r: charge_shiet is comploinL, or in the statemenls unaer Sectiii 2OO CrpC fi;;;; Respondent 2 ond his u.tife. tn fact, bolh the priuate co.nplaint and the statement filed on behalf of ,his wtfe, meieti thot the potice olfcials haue informed !h^..\ tl?t inuestigatioi i_s ongo ng pursuant to their NCR No. 158 of 2O12. The wife,s statemlnt aa,ditionally euen states that no action hns be.en ta-kin so fa, bg the police. It is the litigant,s bounden dut!.t to make a full an l irue-iiscto"ur" of facts. It is a matter of trite latu, ":! y", bLars repetitioi," ,no, ;uppresiion of material facts before a court omounts to abusi. otf m" pii""i.j.,#. cour7, and shall be dealt. with o heaug hand (Rrr* Onrn u. Stote of u.p. lRam Dhan u. State ol u:!:: (2o"12)s iCCsso , tzo-izl i.iit ,:;lrriil,: K.D. sharma u. sArL tK D.'stu; u. s,ir, rzooaili la. The aforesaid pouers bestotoed on the Maq.i.stro e haue graue repercassions on indtuidu.al citizens, t,1. ini'"tia"ng Thus, these ';ili:;"f:'-'::f;::7:^responsibitiis ""''n" sho'tlders of the suitabteludiciat;rpi;;r":,i'i;;"{;::,::.,,:::1Xr,1,";,il|.#i, ";. tuere made bg this Couy, -in Sp zcial Judicial ^y: ;;;r;;-iiaiiii u"girt-ate, (1ee8) 5 Magi-strate [pepsi Foods L!d: scc 74e : 1ee8 scc (cO 14ool , 6;C;.";;;:";;;; r8) ".","sed. in a criminat case rs a serious ,!::":1.;;;;;;;;,;;:,W#:."::f :X;,X;'",::,*{::::Z ^ri3!. "l,l#{.?1:#:[:" "i"r",in" support his allegations in crirtinal lau) set tnto motion. The order ot rnp. Uogbt;ir" ."*i""i"i the t.ccttsed must reJtect that he hos appiied H;;;';;;iiJ iili'!, rhe .ose and the tau applicable thereto. H? F, to examine th" nirrr" cf altegations made in the comptaint qnd the "ria.".L"irin';;"i;k dotumentary tn pepsi Food.s ;;;. complai"ii. ,the- AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1381 'l I i J I I I 5 support thereof and u,tould that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing chnrge home to the acansed. It ts not that h.e Ma@strate i.s o silent spectotor at the time of recordtng of prelimtnary euidence before summoning of tle accused. The Magistrate has to carefullg scrutinise the euidence brought on record and mny euen himself put Ercstions to the complainant and his ruifnesses to elicit onstDers to find out the truthfulness of ttrc allegations or othenoise and tlrcn examine if any offence is pima facie committed bg all or ang of the accused. " This Court, thus, cLearly emphasised tLutt the power to tssue o summoning order i.s a matter of graue importance, and that the Magistrate must onlg allotl criminal la ut to take its course ajl.er sati.sfging him-self thot there is o real cose to be made.

27. AU of this leads to one inescapable conclusion. Thnt tlrc tial Judge has a dutg under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identifg and. dispose of fiuolous litigation at an earlg stage bg exercising, substantiollg and to the fullest extent, the pouers confened on him. This Court Lns earlier emphnsised on the high degree of respon sibilitg shouldered bg the trial Judges in All India Judges' Assn. (1) u. Union of India [All India Judges' Assn. (1) u. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 9l . Ranganath Misra, C.J. (os he u-tas then) uriting for him-self and tuto others stated: (SCC p. 134, para 42) "42. The tial Judge is the kingpin in the hierarchicol sgstem of administrotion of justice. He directly comes in contact uith the litigant during ttte proceedings in Court. On him lies tLrc responsibilitg of building up of the case appropiatelg and on his understanding of the matter the cause of justice is first ansu;ered. The personalitg, knouledge, judicial restraint, capacitg to maintain dignitg are the additional o.spects u.thich go into making ttrc Court's functioning successful.'

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2.d respondent.would submit that though there was a delay in lodging the complaint, however, tJle fact remains that a-11 the petitioners had trespassed into the house and taken away the document, which amounts to criminal trespass and also criminal intimidation of the 2"a respondent, who was a wic ow, living alone in 6 I the said house and running a kirana shop.

10. Initially, a complaint that was hled on OI.1l.2O2O. No action was taken on the said complaint. In the complzLint, there was no mention of any threat, force, or assault by any o1 the petilioners. It was stated that some of the petitioners went to her house and took away a house document. 1 1 . However, the private complaint was hled on 22.Ol .2O2 1 , which is nearly 82 days after the incident. The said com:;laint was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate without application of mind. The Magistrate merely endorsed the offences alle'ged in the private complaint and referred the matter for the purpo! e of investigation. The said act of mechanically referring the complrrints to the police for the purpose of investigation is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'lole Supreme Court and also this Court in severa-l judgments. It is for the Magistrate to apply his rrind to the facts of the case and accordingly refer the complaint frrr the purpose of inveStigation if so required. 1

12. The police, having investigated the case, found that none of the alleged offences under Sections 441, 451, 452, 459, 382, 368, 387 of IPC were made out. The allegation was of trespass and threat. The police did not even hnd that any document had been taken away by force by uny of these petitioners.

13. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 28.04.2021 AS follows: 'Date: 29/ O4/ 2O21. Perused the final report, FIR, case diary, Part-II statements of uitnesses and otLrcr documents uthich are filed along tuith the report which discloses prima facie case for the offence punishable U/s.448, 5O6 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused A1 to A9. Hence, the Charge Sheet has taken on cognizance for the offence tl/ s.448, 506 r/tu 34 IPC against Accused A1 to A9 register as C.C.No.6252 of 2021. Issue summons to accused A1 to A9. Call on 11.11.2021."

14. Once again, it is clear that the learned Magistrate. has mechanically signed while taking cognrzance against the petitioners. A bald allegation that he has referred to the documents hled by the potice would not sufhce to prove the understanding of i j i 8 the case, a-nd the reasons for taking cognizance orrght to have been made by the learned Magistrate before taking cognj zartce. 15. The Honble Supreme Court Bhajanlalz, held as follows: in State of Haryana Vs. "The follouting categoies of cases can be stated bg utag oJ i ustration u-therein the ertraordin.ary pouer und.er Article 226 o,. the inherent pouers under Section 4g2 CrpC can be exe:rcised. bg t)rc High Court either to preuent abuse of the process of ang court or otlrcnaise to seatre the ends of justice, though it mog not be possibl,t to lag d.own ony precise, clearlg defined and. sufficien y channetised. and inflexible gaidelines or rigid formulae and. to giue an exhnustiue tst of mgiad. kinds of cases utherein such pou.ter should be exercised.: (1) Where tLrc allegations mad.e in the fi.rst information report or the complaint, euen if theg are taken at their face ualue am,. accepted. in their entiretg do not prima facie constitute ang offence o . make out a case against lhe acansed. (2) Wlere the allegations in the f.rst infonnation repott and. other materials, if ang, accompanging the FIR do not disclose t cognizable offence, justtfuing an inuestigation by potice officers under section 1s6 of th.e Code e*:ept und.er an order of a Magtstrate within the puruieu of Section 155 (2) of tLe Cod.e. (3) Where the uncontrouerted. allegations mad.e in the FIR tr complaint and the euidence collecterl in sapport of the same d.o not lisctose tLe commission of any offence and make out a ccise against th<, accused. ' 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 i t I I - 9 (4) Wrcre, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute ct cogni'z'able offence but constitute onlg a non-cognizable offence' no inuestigation is permitted bg a police oJficer roithout an order of a Mogi'strote os contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code' (5) Wrcre the allegotion-s mode in tLE FIR or complaint ore so obsurd and. inherentlg improboble on the basis of rahich no prudent person can euer reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the acansed' (6). Where there is on eryress legal bar engrofted in ang of ttte prouisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under ttthich a cininol proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or uthere tlrcre is a specifc prouision in the Code or the concer-ned Act, prouiding efficacious red-ress for the gieuance of tle aggieued Partg ' (7) Were a ciminal proceeding is manifestlg attended tuith mala fide and/ or ttthere the proceeding is moliciously irLstih-Lted with an utteior motiue for ureaking u"ng"oi"" on the accused and rtith a uieu to spite him due to priuate and personal grudge'"

16. The complaint was frled deliberately to intimidate the petitioners. Though the initial complaint was flled' there is no mention of any force used by the petitioners' and the allegation was made that the document of the house was taken away' The said allegation was found to be incorrect' based on a private complaint frledafter82daysduringtheinvestigationbythepolice. I I t I 10 17 - For the reasons discussed above' the procet'dings against the petitioners in C.C.No'62 52 of 2O2l on the hle of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally' Hyderabad' are hereby \i \ quashed.

18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed' Consequently' miscellaneous applications pending' if any' shall ;tand closed' ,/TRUE COPY" SD/. AHMI: D ABDULL AH KHAN t ISTANT REGISTRAR t; SECTTON OFFICER \ 1 To, rheVrAdditio",,"If ,y"["Jo"jffi#a:;:'i3;lJf tllilr"{fl :::' rnl station House officer'*;:fi[il;r; for the st rte of Telangana at Two CCs to Public Prosecr B'.l%t'ii!",.,:#*Xi**TJ,"-l5Jilii"',Lo#?f .,", One CC to Sri BoYa Ravlno Two CD CoPies

1. 2. J. 4 5 6 ADK/gh I HIGH COURT DATED:30104t2025 i I l ORDER CRLP.No.13142 of 2024 q o os HE ST4I 6' ( ((: r I ): ,I: 11 ,ttji,l 2UZ5 t t) c.sFr1{-lt Ll t, ALLOWING THE CRLP (r'i" \\ aYr