The High Court · 2025

.. COMPLAINANTS/RESPONDENT Petition under section.52g of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground. or ciiri,in; pe.tition, the High court may be pleased to call for record and qrrrn tf," proleedings in C.C. No. 9691 of tn" court or tu ri nJor 6'nlli r,r.tioporit,n-r,,r"g;.t;;;, nt i?33;,,i:,jf,JJl,"",lt l.A. NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under Section.52g of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground. orci,'irinl petition, the High court may be..pleased to stay all further ^proceeJi"J. ln"iroirg the appearance of the petitioners in c- c. No. 9691 ot z.ozs,on tt"e rii" Jthe court of the il Addr chief Metropolitan Magistrate, At Hyderabad District. This Petition r;orrirgi on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminarl [):tition and upon hearing the arguments of Sr i S A RAZAK, Advocate for the l:'€rtitioner and Sri. D ARUN KUMAR, Asr,;istant Public Prosecutor, on behalf r:1'the Respondent No.'1 and Sri. BANKA'ILAI, MANDHANI, Advocate for the Ilesp,rndent No.2 The Court made lhe fcllowing: ORDER O THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAI PETITION No.1S71S of20124 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.9691 of 2023 on the file of the iearned Il Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 43O, 503, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de fac to complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that that he and his sisters are the sole owners of the Dr. Yadgiri Complex, and the petitioners are trying to take advantage of his old age to grab his properfir. The petitioners have aliegedly captured the shops and flats oi the de facto complainant, collected rent from tenants without his knowledge since 201O, and regularly trespassed into his property, causing trouble. Specific incidents include stopping the lift service on August 17, 2022, and disconnecting the water supply on April 2, 2A23. The petitioners have also used 2 SKS'J Crl.P.Ho.1.571S,:f 2024 .\ vulgar lanllLaslo. abused, and threatened the compiainan. anC his familv, p u t t urg their safeqy at risk.

3. Hearil -,r i S.A. Razack, learned counsel zrpp€arlr g on behalf of t:rtr prcl itioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, lci'rncd Additional I'.rl,lic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent N() I State and Sri Bankatlal Mandhanj. lct rned counsel a;trrsi1,-ino on behalf of respondent No.2 dtr iacto complainanl -

4. Learn,-'ri :ounsel for the petitioners submitted thet the complainanr rrLrl the petitioners are family rnemt,ersi, ',r rt-r the petitionem lrt rrL;1 the rightful owners and in possessior t,f the Dr. Yadgiri <:ornplex. The complainant has c,ccttpi,'c flat Nos.4O2 z nrI lll)1 without paying maintenance charge s for several !'(:rrsi. clespite repeated requests and rlo.ices. Conseque!)l r, the petitioners were compelled to stop tl,e lift service :rrtrl n:rter supply to the said flats, u'l-rlch is a legitimatc' aol i rn in accordance with the 'f ela.r gana Apartmenl s n,or.. He further submitted that the pr,rsent complaint js ir llatant attempt to convert a civil cisprrtt into a crirninal case. ,r'ith the complainant having hled sevr:ral suits ,l\ 3 SKS,J Crl.P.I{o. I5715 ot 2024 and complaints earlier on similar facts, which were either dismissed or pending adjudication. This pattern of behavior indicates a clear abuse of process of law, aimed at harassing and pressurizing the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 430 of IPC is not applicable in this case, as Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments Act empowers thc manager or board of managers to cutoff essential supplies in case of non- payment of maintenance charges. The allegations made in the complaint are false, fabricated, and concocted, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the claim of the ownership and possession of the petitioners of the entire complex is entirely false and baseiess, lacking any credible evidence. The respondent and his sisters are the absolute owners of the portion of the property gifted by late Smt. B. -_---.........- 4 sxs,J Crl-P No. 1:;715,,f 2024 ir. Indira Dcvi tlrrtr-rgh registered gift deeds, and the potiti(,ners have no le3i i r-ratc right or interest over it. The actions c,f the petitioners, i - < luding stopping the lift service ar rl r,"-atcr supply to th(' rcspondent's premises, constitute a clear ofJence and an aticrnl) _ 1o inLerfere with the respondenl's lt:gitirna[e use of his )ro[,(.].t\'. The criminal case has been prope rl., ,ilecl, and the rer;porrl:nl has a strong pima facie case agtrins:. the petitioners. Lt:rr-necl counsel for respondent No.:2 ccnterrded that the contctr:ions of the petitioners are nolhinr3 br rt . a bundle of f als,:l oods, devoid of any documentary evi(len(.e to support thejr r:l:rims. The attempt of the pe titicncr.i to fabricate a lis:rr e zrnd create a defense is a clear abuse ol the legal procc;s 'J'1icrc[ore, hc prayed the Court to disrniss the criminetl pe 'ti(,r.

7. In lighr . I rht: submissions made by both the learnecl counsel ancl r r1;c r L perusal of the material availabk: on rcc >rd. it appears trzrl 116 alleged offences against the petitioners are under Sect:or r:; , 30, 5O3, 504, and 5O6 of the IpC). I.he allegation is t.rilt rhc petitioners, who are not conne ctecl rn an1. manner wirlr F itL No.4O2, have wrongfully interferr:d u.ith the a,r\ 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.15715 of 2024 amenities of Flat Nos.402 and 501 , of which the de facto complainants claim ownership .8. The specihc allegation against the petitioners is that they stopped the lift services and water supply to Flats 4O2 and 50 1. The petitioners have admitted to this act, justifying it on [he ground that respondent No.2 has failed to pay the maintenance charges. On the other hand, the complainant contends that, as the owner of the entire complex, he is .not liable to pay any maintenance charges to the petitioners. He further asserts that the building in which the petitioners or,r,n flats is separate and unconnected with his own complex.

9. A reading of the complaint reveals that the de lacto complainants reside in Flats 402 and 5O 1, whereas the petitioners are owners of flats on the first and second floors, which clearly shows that the petitioners are not the sole owners of the entire complex. It is also pertinent to note that the present proceedings are not intended to adjudicate the ownership of the properry. / 6 SXS,J Crl.P.No. 15'715 ol 2024 a1 \. !

10. Thc rli;pr- tc esscntially revolves around the strlppa'1e of Iift sen ict:,; a rtrl u'ater supply. The petitioners cla im t I be managing tI e tr ainte nance of the premises and asscrt that the complzLrrr:r:ts have defaulted in paying their sherc' The learned coun:;t:l for the petitioners has fi1ed docurrtents showing tllat t 1ev paid maintenance charges fc'r thc e ntire building u: to 2024. In contrast, the counsel for rer:;porrdent No.2 has fiI,--c electricity bi1ls allegedly covering the v"hole bu ild in g. 1 1. Botl ;rirrt es have filed electricity bills llot':vr:r ' the bills filed rr- .he petitioners clearly pertain to cor 'mon services, r*,h ili lhose filed by respondent No. 2 cio uot rr:flect the same, 'l're t:ore dispute is thus regarding palme rt of maintenar{:'r ir-':ci utiliq' charges The documents; filerd bi'the petitioners d:tnonstrate that they have paid the conlmon service ch'arg-'s, and in such a scenario, as per ljectior-i 21 of the Apartrnt:rL li Act, any person who incurs such expetrr';es is entitled to rr('lver the same from the flat owners. Moreo"'er, if such d,uo; r,rrt ain unpaid, they may withhold senrice: ' like water sup olt' zncl lilt operation to the concerned flats /,Y 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.15715 of 2024

72. Therefore, the registration of a criminal case against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences appears to be a misuse of the legal process. Both parties have also conceded that title disputes are pending before the competent civil Court. Ownership rights and related issues must be determined by the civil Court, and such civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal proceedings. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners constitutes an abuse of process of law, and the sarne are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.No.g 6g7 0f 2023 0n the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also //TRUE COPYII SD/- N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR' SECTiON OFFICER To :lli,E;,.*""X,,,{:gi:?:XS,ti?,:, 'il[?,Jif flg'..,,[.J,y,.,TSr,?,li:,I:fl 2. The Station House Officer, Sultan Bazar p.S., Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRt. S A RA 4. TWOCCS tO PUBLIC 5 .ne c*o sR, ,^_*Y;..T]::ff;ffi1,111",,", 6. Two CD Copies AdVOCAtE [OPUC] ".ZAK l/ HIGH COURT DATED:0910612'.025 1 r\[:. ! I Af6 o A .( ti zE,.rJN l$zi ( .:. ,, z :) I ORDER t GRLP.No.1571t5 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED /a 4 , I /b ,