The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.168 of 2025, daled 24.1O.2025 on the file of sHo PS sujathanagar against the Petitioner/Accused Nos. 1 and 4 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under sectron 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FIR No 168 of 2025, dated 24.10.2025 on the file of SHO PS Sujathanagar against the Petitioner/Accused No 1 and 4 including their arrest. This Petition conring on for hearing upon perusing il e lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argume r ts of Sri KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jitherr er Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondi: t No.1, and none appeared for for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14071 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminat Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.'168 of 2025 on the file of Sujathanagar Police Station, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District, registered for the offences under Seclions 324(4), 329(4) and 49 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS')

2. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State

3. The case of respondent No.2-de faclo complainant is that earlier his son-in-law i.e., accused No.2 along with his family members and friends have broken the lock and occupied the house bearing No.1-7-118l2C, situated at Vepalagadda Village of Sujathanagar Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, belonging to his daughter, and as such, a case in Crime No.158 of 2025 of Sujathanagar Police Station, was registered on 23.09.2025 and while the said crime is still under investigation, again on 21 .10.2025, the de facfo complainant received information that the doors, windows, walls, cupboard, ceiling \\\)\ LI'D,J ( r P )'l,i ll07l ol2015 and roof of the said house were dismanfled and tlr s. on22.10.2025, he went to the said house along with others and fo rnd that the doors and windows of the said house were replaced with c reao material and renovation work is in progress and that they havr caused damage worth of Rs.1.00.000/- When the de facto col plainant enquired about the same with the wife of one p Nagesw: a Rao, who was present at the said house at that time, she said thal :hey would vacate the house in two days. On 24.10.2025, when the c; [acto complainant went to the said house. he found that two locks r ere placed to the gate and that renovation work was being carrr : j out by one p. Prasanth under the supervision of his son-in-law : r d others. Hence, he filed the present complaint to take action agains t the accused, who trespassed into nis daughter's house and damaged I re property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitte < that the de facto complainanl is the father-in-law of accused No 2 I nd that there are marital disputes between accused No.2 and the c: rghter of cle facto complainant. He further submitted that even as pei he contents of the complaint, the allegation of trespass does not a tract against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the offe rce under section 49 of BNS would not get attracted against the peti i rners in this case, since the petitioners herein never abetted to comm t any such offence. t ETD,J CrlP No.1407l of2025 He further submitted that accused No.2 and the daughter of de facto complainant used to live at U.S.A. and that there are certain family disputes and just to settle the civil cases, the present case is filed as a counter blast by lhe de facto complainant. He further submitted that alleging that the petitioners in collusion with accused No.2 harassed the de facto complainant and his daughter both physically and mentally and also threatened them with dire consequences, the de facfo complainant has lodged a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.509 of 2025 of Khammam ll Town Police Station, Khammam Distrrct. He further submitted that another crime vide Crime No lBB5 of 2025 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad, was also registered against petitioner No.1 herein basihg on another complaint filed by the de faclo complainant only to harass the petitioners herein to settle the disputes between the daughter and son- in-law of the de facto complainant. He further submitted that multiple F.l.Rs. were registered based on single incident. He further submitted that the de facto complainant alleged that accused No.2 is addicted to bad vices, but accused No.2 is a reputed software engineer and that he is facing false allegations in the hands of the de faclo complainant He further submitted that all the offences alleged in the present crime punishable with less than seven years imprisonment. He, \ 4 ETI),.1 Crl.P \'-. 11071 of20li therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in t re present crime against the petitioners herein. 5 Learned Additional Public prosecutor sui> nrtted lhat three crimes were registered based on three different caL ses of action. He further submitted that one complaint was lodged at Gachibowli police Station, Cyberabad, wherein, it is alleged that il r accused therern locked the subject property therein, whereas the pr:sent complaint is filed at Sujathanagar Police station, Bhadradri-K,) hagudem District, alleging trespass. Another complaint is filed at ( ramrram Il Town Police station alleging harassment. He further subr itted that since all the cases pertain to different set of incidents, th: contention of the petitioners' counsel that registering multiple F.l Rs based on single incident is not tenable. He further submitted that t rere is no merit in the Criminal Petition and therefore, prayed to dismi:; the same.

6. Perused the record

7. The contents of the complaint point out s recific allegations against the petitioners herein for the offences unde - Sections 324(4), 329(4) and 49 of BNS. Though the petitioners' cour. ;el contended that multiple F.l.Rs. were registered against the petitior ers. based on an alleged incident, just to harass them, a perusal ol he record reveals . 5 ETD,J Crl P No 14071 of2025 that there are three F.l.Rs. based on three different set of facts. Crime No.168 of 2025 was registered alleging trespass, mischief and abetment, Crime No.509 of 2025 is registered alleging harassment and Crime No.1B85 of 2025 is registered alleging trespass and criminal intimidation. Thus, the said contention of the petitioners' counsel cannot be said to be a ground to quash the proceedings in the present crime. The investigatron rs strll in progress. Truth is yet to be unravelled. Therefore, it is not proper to interfere with the investigation at this stage. Since the punishment for the offences alleged is less than seven years imprisonment, it rs deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by directing the police to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to appear before the lnvestigating Officer concerned on or before 25.11.2025 between .l 1:00 Ati/l and 5:00 PM, and in turn, the lnvestigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharl scrupulously and the petitioners are also directed to co-operate with the ' (2011) 8 scc 273 I 6 EI I),1 Clrl P No l4lit of202i lnvestigating Officer and to furnish the requisitr: information and documents as and when required by him lrliscellaneous applicatrons, if any, pending sh I I stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. M.NAGAMANI ASS I ;TANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem ' ilir:lli"#ouse officer' sujathanasar Police station i hadadri ' Ivo'*t"ot l"r$fi;'olit Prosecutor, High court for the sr:r ) of retangana at 4. One CC to SRI KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, Advocate tOF t Cl 5. Two CD Copies \r,B'PSt.,4,a HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 , ..--_:-_ i\j .',,1 r: ii .,i ,r'.,.!' i. I 2ffi 'I \-. -:r I ,/ .;\ ORDER CRLP.No.14071 ot 2025 i I DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION {. \).