The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by SHO, Uppal Po r ;e Station, Through Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana ,1 Hyderabad. ... Respc,r denUCom plainant 2 Ganjay Mahesh , S/o. late Narsimha aged about 40 year,; Occ Band master, R/o H. No 2-5-25, lndta Nagar, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgir District ...RespondenUc r facto-Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th€ High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C.No.28 of 2024, dt. 05/(r( t2O24 on the file of Ld. Special Court for the Trial of SC/STs (POA) Act cases, F i nga Reddy District, L. B. Nagar. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that r1 the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, ti r High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of Ld. Special Court for the Trial of SC/STs (POA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VADEENDRA JOSHI. Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addrtional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of None Appeared for the respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DI: /I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13581 and 13641 o' 2 025 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the petitions r one and the same, both the petitions are being disposed of ry way of this common order 2 Crl P No 13581 of 2025is fited by the peti oners-A3 to 46 and Crl P No. 13641 of 2025 is filed by the ::titioners- ,A1 and A2 to seeking to quash the proceedings in )C No.2B of 2024 on the file of Special Court for trial of SC'l ,Ts (poA) Act cases, Ranga Reddy District, for the offer( es under Sections 457, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC anc Sections 3(J)(r)(s) 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and icheduted Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC/S l Act') 3 Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, Iearned cou.r;el for the petitioners and Sri Jilhender Rao Veeramalla learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 -State

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners har; submitted that the petitioners never trespassed into the lan J of the de facfo complainant and that the respondent No.2 has sold away I I ) ETD,J crt_P No.tisal ot 2o2s I lrStal JOL I the land to accused No.2 and possession is also delivered in his favour and thus, the allegation of trespass against the petitioners would not arise. He, therefore. prayed to quash the proceedings against the petrtioners. 5 The learned Additional public prosecutor has submitted that lhe respondent No.2 is shown to be the owner of 90 sq. yds., of land and out of which, he has executed a sale deed to an extent of 50 sq. yds., and has executed a gift deed in favour of his wife for the remaining extent of 40 sq yds., and that the petitioners are encroaching into the extent of 1+0 sq. yds., which was gifted to the wife of respondent No.2. Hence, the respondent No.2 lodged the conrplaint and thus, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6 Perused the record. The recitals of charge sheet point out that the respondent No.2-de faclo complainant inherited 90 sq yds., of land from his forefathers and out of the said lanci, he gifted 40 sq yds., to LW1, who is his wife, and when they are constructing a house in the said 40 sq. yds., of land, accused Nos.1 to 6 trespassed into the property with crowbars and damaged the doors, windows etc., and further abused the de facto conrplaint by touching his caste name and t i i i I \ J ,tP N..l:s!, ot 2o?5.+ IttLql LO 25; threatened with dire consequences. LWs 2 and 3:r e shown to be eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and hat in the alleged incident the petitioners have attacked L\i\, I also. The veracity of these witnesses needs to be testerl during the course of trial Hence, the proceedings cannot t e quashed against the petitioners. However, it is deemed a I rropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners be,l rre the trial court. 7 Accordingly, both the criminal petitions a e disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitior t rs-accused Nos.1 to 6 before the trial court provided they are epresented by a counsel on every date of hearing before the t i rl court and they shall appear before the trial court as anci when their presence is required. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, ;hall stand closed. SD/. M:NAGAMANI AgSI iTANT REGISTRAR \, //TRUE COPY// I . SECTION OFFICER To, w

1. The Special Court for the Trail of SC/STs (POA) Act ca; rs Rangareddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, Rach'rl cna 3.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor'HighCourtforthestlteofTelanganaat Hyderabad IOUT]

4. One CC to SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies -*-- ; - "-:T:-TFI :-,.*Eul HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 I I ,y 7- c) 1 tt $NM * I * t , COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.13581 and 13641 ot 2025 DISPOSING THE BOTH CRLP'S