The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNS stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of be pleased to call for the records in C. C Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy No. 1 and 2 as the same is illegal and abuse praying that in the circumstances riminal Petition, the High Court may o. 39 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble n so far as the petitioners / Accused f process of law l.A. NO:2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of C iminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in luding arrest and appearance of the petitioner / Accused No. 1 and 2 in C. C. N . 39 of 2023 on the file cif Hon'ble nding disposal of the above C11 . P. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy p ==i::*in_E This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. lNDlRA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Surepalli Prashanth, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTIC ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION N .rs154 0F 2024 ORDER: This criminal petition is file under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa hita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.39 of 2 23 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga Red -Y

2. Heard Smt. Indira, learned ounsel for petitioners, and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned ssistarll Public Prosecutor for respondent No.I - State. Peru ed the material on record

3. Basing on the complaint fil d by respond ent No.2 lde- factc.t cornplatnant, an F-[Il bcarin No.4 oi 2023 came to be registered on 02.0 I .2023 at Amee pur Police Station, under Sections 448, 341, 127, 324, 5O4 d 506 r/w 34 of IPC

4. The gist of the complaint is t at one Pyata Rajavardhan Reddy, a resident of H.No.4-4 13, stated thal he has Iand lor development. agricultural land and given th A venture came up with name Se than Greenpark. Accused Nos.1 to 8 are residents of the sai venture. It is alleged that 2 JAK, J CRLP l5 t5.1 2024 on 31. 12.2022, n hile Airtel Company u,orkers trieci to install a tou/er on the terrace o1- complainant,s resiclence, accused Nos. 1 to 8 trespassed into the complainant,s house, abused respondent No.2 and cut the u,ires ald beat u,ith hands, bricks and threatened n'ith dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. 5 The charge sheet is 1iled dated Ni1

6. Lcarned counsel for petitioners/ accusecl Nos. 1 and 2 produced a cop\r of tlte bye-1ans of the Senthan Greenpark Association. Clause 9(C) ol the bye-laws is as fol jows: 'Any installation oL generators, ro\\.ers or encroachments in road/common areas, cvcn it temporarv, as well as any business opcrations rr.ithin thr: prcmises, must obtain a prior No Objcction Certificate (NOC) from rhc Association.,, 7 . 11 is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that complainant being a resident of the venture has not given any prror intimation with regard to erection o1- cell tower at H. No.4 4l / 3 and the same was objected b-_r, residents. A perusal of Clause 9(C) of bye-lar,r,s indicates that for installation of a tower ,No Objection Certificate, from the ) .;.W, .:., * // J JAK. J cltLP I5t54-202{ association is required and no s ch procedure is followed as stated in the bye-laws registered ide Regd.No.379 of 2019.

8. This Court on the last occ sion requested the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor ap earing on behalf of State whether there u,as a lease agre ment entered between an1, person/ persons residing in th venture ll,ith respect to erection of cell tower. A copy of I ase agreement dated Nil of the year 2022 IS placed on reco d. lt is surprising to note that Lease Agreement is ent rcd between one Pyata Narasimha Reddy, a resident of .No.4-4 1, who is termed a Lesser and Netfra Solutions Pri te Limited, a company of Bombay as a Lessee. Lease Agree ent is entered for a period of Seven (07) years. It is observed from the charge sheet that LW1 i.e the complainant he IN granted permission to install a cell tower on his house.

9. It defies the logic of thi Court as to how the complainant can give permlsston o install a cell tower on his residence bearing No.4-4 i / 3 whe as the Lease Agreement ts entered betu,een one {zata Narasr ha Reddy who is resident of H.No.4-41 and Netfra Solut on, Private Limited. The complainant is not a party to t agreement, he does not 4 .],\K, J cRt.P t5t5l 2024 have any locus to give permission to erect thc. cell torver, inspite ol which, the FIR came to be registered

10. Association is registered, it has bye-lau,s applicable to residents of the venture. It is not in dispute-that complainant is a resident of the venture and is bound lty tl-re bye-1ar,vs. Even if the complainant is not a member of the association, still it is his bounden duty to take the consent of the residents of vcnture. Such a consent is lacking. Crievance of accused Nos.1 and 2 is bona fide. 1 1. Lease Agreement is entered between Fj.,ata Narasimaha Reddv (Lesser) and Netfra Solutions private Limired (t.essee) and thr: complaint has to be lodged by the Lesser.

12. Allegations in the FIR/complaint are that. ri.hen the cell tower rvas being erected on 31. 1,2.2022, accus€rd bargcd into the house, abuscd and cut the wires. It is surprrsirlg to note that as to l'row wires could be cut without crection of the tor.r.er, it is only after erection of the ccll tou,er, the u,ires w,ou1d be fixed. There is no altegation that atlyone received injuries, there are no specific allegations of an1' overt acts against the accused/ petitioners. Absencc of specific 5 JAK. J cRL-P l5l5.t 2021 allegations lead to an adverse offences, ingredients of the alleg out and have to be reflected in t allegations or ingredients are fort inference. To attract the d offences are to be made e complaint/FIR. No such comlng.

13. Perusal of the lease agre Narasimaha ReddY is the lesser' with Registration No 379 of 201 ent indicates that Pyata he association is registered . One of the bYe-laws is as follorl,s: "AnY installation of encroachments in road/ co as \vell as any b temPorary, the premtses, must obtain Certihcate (NOC) from the Ass Lowers generators, mon areas' siness oPerations within a prior No Objection iation."

14. It is not the case of resPo being erected anYwhere outside GreenPark Owners Associatron regarding the factual asPects' dent No.2 that the tower ls he premtse s of the Senthan Once there is no disPute he comPlaint itself has no basis. Hence, the comPlaint is d void of merits. \

15. As noted suPra, there As held bY the Honble APex Co prima facie indicate the ingred to be registered as an FIR' re no sPecific allegattons rt, a comPlaint must at least ents of an offence in order In the Present case, such I I I l I I 6 JN K. I clt I t5 t5J 20t l ingredients are lacking. This Court does not lind any merits in the complaint. Such clisputes can be settled amicably ancl peacefully. Hou,ever, such course of action has not been adopted. lnstead, the fiting of complaint w,ould onlv distancc cordial relations between the persons staying in the same localitl, who must continue to live there rvith their families and childret-r for a longer period.

16. For thc reasons aforesaid, the proceeclings in CC.No.39 of 2023 on the lile of Judicial First Class Magrstr_ate, Sanga Rcddy, agair-ist petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

17. With thc above observations, the Criminal petition is allou,ed. Miscellaneous applications pending, il. anr,, shall stand clo sed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR seclSrlorrrcen giskate, Sangareddy. rc^er, Ameenpur police Station, Sangareddy Advocate tOPUCI To, 1 . Judicial First Class Ma 2. The Station House Off 3. One CC to Smt. lndira. 4. Two CD Copies 5,'. ABK/gh lr-' /,'-: o o ,4,,..', 4a€ 6( 13 AUB 2E : * Or SP,1IC\ HIGH COURT DATED: 1110612025 ORDER CRLP.No.15154 ot 2O24 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o /2. 5 3

Petition under Section 528 of BNS stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of be pleased to call for the records in C. C Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy No. 1 and 2 as the same is illegal and abuse praying that in the circumstances riminal Petition, the High Court may o. 39 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble n so far as the petitioners / Accused f process of law l.A. NO:2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of C iminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in luding arrest and appearance of the petitioner / Accused No. 1 and 2 in C. C. N . 39 of 2023 on the file cif Hon'ble nding disposal of the above C11 . P. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy p ==i::*in_E This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. lNDlRA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Surepalli Prashanth, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTIC ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION N .rs154 0F 2024 ORDER: This criminal petition is file under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa hita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioners/ accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.39 of 2 23 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga Red -Y

2. Heard Smt. Indira, learned ounsel for petitioners, and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned ssistarll Public Prosecutor for respondent No.I - State. Peru ed the material on record

3. Basing on the complaint fil d by respond ent No.2 lde- factc.t cornplatnant, an F-[Il bcarin No.4 oi 2023 came to be registered on 02.0 I .2023 at Amee pur Police Station, under Sections 448, 341, 127, 324, 5O4 d 506 r/w 34 of IPC

4. The gist of the complaint is t at one Pyata Rajavardhan Reddy, a resident of H.No.4-4 13, stated thal he has Iand lor development. agricultural land and given th A venture came up with name Se than Greenpark. Accused Nos.1 to 8 are residents of the sai venture. It is alleged that 2 JAK, J CRLP l5 t5.1 2024 on 31. 12.2022, n hile Airtel Company u,orkers trieci to install a tou/er on the terrace o1- complainant,s resiclence, accused Nos. 1 to 8 trespassed into the complainant,s house, abused respondent No.2 and cut the u,ires ald beat u,ith hands, bricks and threatened n'ith dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. 5 The charge sheet is 1iled dated Ni1

6. Lcarned counsel for petitioners/ accusecl Nos. 1 and 2 produced a cop\r of tlte bye-1ans of the Senthan Greenpark Association. Clause 9(C) ol the bye-laws is as fol jows: 'Any installation oL generators, ro\\.ers or encroachments in road/common areas, cvcn it temporarv, as well as any business opcrations rr.ithin thr: prcmises, must obtain a prior No Objcction Certificate (NOC) from rhc Association.,, 7 . 11 is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that complainant being a resident of the venture has not given any prror intimation with regard to erection o1- cell tower at H. No.4 4l / 3 and the same was objected b-_r, residents. A perusal of Clause 9(C) of bye-lar,r,s indicates that for installation of a tower ,No Objection Certificate, from the ) .;.W, .:., * // J JAK. J cltLP I5t54-202{ association is required and no s ch procedure is followed as stated in the bye-laws registered ide Regd.No.379 of 2019.

8. This Court on the last occ sion requested the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor ap earing on behalf of State whether there u,as a lease agre ment entered between an1, person/ persons residing in th venture ll,ith respect to erection of cell tower. A copy of I ase agreement dated Nil of the year 2022 IS placed on reco d. lt is surprising to note that Lease Agreement is ent rcd between one Pyata Narasimha Reddy, a resident of .No.4-4 1, who is termed a Lesser and Netfra Solutions Pri te Limited, a company of Bombay as a Lessee. Lease Agree ent is entered for a period of Seven (07) years. It is observed from the charge sheet that LW1 i.e the complainant he IN granted permission to install a cell tower on his house.

9. It defies the logic of thi Court as to how the complainant can give permlsston o install a cell tower on his residence bearing No.4-4 i / 3 whe as the Lease Agreement ts entered betu,een one {zata Narasr ha Reddy who is resident of H.No.4-41 and Netfra Solut on, Private Limited. The complainant is not a party to t agreement, he does not 4 .],\K, J cRt.P t5t5l 2024 have any locus to give permission to erect thc. cell torver, inspite ol which, the FIR came to be registered

10. Association is registered, it has bye-lau,s applicable to residents of the venture. It is not in dispute-that complainant is a resident of the venture and is bound lty tl-re bye-1ar,vs. Even if the complainant is not a member of the association, still it is his bounden duty to take the consent of the residents of vcnture. Such a consent is lacking. Crievance of accused Nos.1 and 2 is bona fide. 1 1. Lease Agreement is entered between Fj.,ata Narasimaha Reddv (Lesser) and Netfra Solutions private Limired (t.essee) and thr: complaint has to be lodged by the Lesser.

12. Allegations in the FIR/complaint are that. ri.hen the cell tower rvas being erected on 31. 1,2.2022, accus€rd bargcd into the house, abuscd and cut the wires. It is surprrsirlg to note that as to l'row wires could be cut without crection of the tor.r.er, it is only after erection of the ccll tou,er, the u,ires w,ou1d be fixed. There is no altegation that atlyone received injuries, there are no specific allegations of an1' overt acts against the accused/ petitioners. Absencc of specific 5 JAK. J cRL-P l5l5.t 2021 allegations lead to an adverse offences, ingredients of the alleg out and have to be reflected in t allegations or ingredients are fort inference. To attract the d offences are to be made e complaint/FIR. No such comlng.

13. Perusal of the lease agre Narasimaha ReddY is the lesser' with Registration No 379 of 201 ent indicates that Pyata he association is registered . One of the bYe-laws is as follorl,s: "AnY installation of encroachments in road/ co as \vell as any b temPorary, the premtses, must obtain Certihcate (NOC) from the Ass Lowers generators, mon areas' siness oPerations within a prior No Objection iation."

14. It is not the case of resPo being erected anYwhere outside GreenPark Owners Associatron regarding the factual asPects' dent No.2 that the tower ls he premtse s of the Senthan Once there is no disPute he comPlaint itself has no basis. Hence, the comPlaint is d void of merits. \

15. As noted suPra, there As held bY the Honble APex Co prima facie indicate the ingred to be registered as an FIR' re no sPecific allegattons rt, a comPlaint must at least ents of an offence in order In the Present case, such I I I l I I 6 JN K. I clt I t5 t5J 20t l ingredients are lacking. This Court does not lind any merits in the complaint. Such clisputes can be settled amicably ancl peacefully. Hou,ever, such course of action has not been adopted. lnstead, the fiting of complaint w,ould onlv distancc cordial relations between the persons staying in the same localitl, who must continue to live there rvith their families and childret-r for a longer period.

16. For thc reasons aforesaid, the proceeclings in CC.No.39 of 2023 on the lile of Judicial First Class Magrstr_ate, Sanga Rcddy, agair-ist petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

17. With thc above observations, the Criminal petition is allou,ed. Miscellaneous applications pending, il. anr,, shall stand clo sed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR seclSrlorrrcen giskate, Sangareddy. rc^er, Ameenpur police Station, Sangareddy Advocate tOPUCI To, 1 . Judicial First Class Ma 2. The Station House Off 3. One CC to Smt. lndira. 4. Two CD Copies 5,'. ABK/gh lr-' /,'-: o o ,4,,..', 4a€ 6( 13 AUB 2E : * Or SP,1IC\ HIGH COURT DATED: 1110612025 ORDER CRLP.No.15154 ot 2O24 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o /2. 5 3