The High Court · 2025

High Court at 2 Sabavath Rangamma, W/o Sabavat Hanumaa Naik Aged about. Major, Occ. Housewife R/o Masthan Nagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RES PO N D ENT/CO M PLAI NANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR in Crime No.'1290 of 2024 dated 15.11.2024 PS Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate against the petitioner/A-1 . l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner/A- 1 in Crime No.1290 of 2024 dated 15.11.2024 PS Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, pending disposal of above Quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Aithanaboina Rama Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15768 of 2o24 ORDER: This Crminal Petition is filed seeking the Co,rrt to quash the 'oroceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. i29O of 2024 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Racha konda Commissior': er'lte, registered for the offences punir;hable under Secti,:n,s 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 and Sectior- 3(1)(r) SC/ST POA Act, 2O15.

2. The trrief facts of the case are that on 15. 1 1 .20.)4, de facto compJairant lodged a complaint at Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate stating that in th,: Year 2012, lner husband purchased a plot in Shirdi Sai 'tlagar, Anmagai Oircle 3, Hayathnagar, LB Nagar, with ,';urvey Nos.306, 310, 312, 314,316,373 and 375. In the year 2023, when they began constructing a house on the plot, Mr'. Siva Prasad, Mr. Venkat Reddy, and others stoppecl the construction, claiming that it encroached on a putrli< road area. Despite having permission from the Zonal CommissiorLer, L.B.Nagar, GHMC, the complainant rLlleges 2 sKs,J CrL-P.No-1576E of 2024 that the police supported the opposing party and issued a show-cause notice to her husband. She requests a detailed inquiry and disciplinary action against Mr. Siva prasad, alleging that he is threatening her husband'.s life and trying to vacate them from their plots using departmental powers and money power.

3. Heard Sri Aithanaboina Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in question originally belonged to Mohd.Abdul Nabi and others, who executed a registered GpA in favor of G. Komuraiah in the year 1993. He further submitted that the owners subsequently executed a sale deed through their GpA holder, G. Komaraiah, in favor of pallera Ravi Kumar in the year 1996, and that the property is part of the Siridi Nagar Layout Plan in Sy.Nos.306 to 310, 312, 3I4,316, 373 and 375 at Anmagal, Hayathnagar Village. He contended that the property was later sold by pallera Ravi Kumar,s wife and -: l I l I i 3 SKS,J Ctl.P.ro.1576a o f 2024 children to Alampally Venkateswarlu in the year 2013' and subsequently sold to the petitioner in the year 2O 16'

5. that the Learnerd counsel for the petitioner further contc'nded has been in peaceful Possession and petlt]oner 2O16, and has obt rined of the property since enjoyment necessary p(lrrnissions and approvals from the autho::ities' including the CiHMC and that the 2'd respondent is a stranger to the prope:rty and has no right, title' or interest in the r;ame' false and motivated bY ulterror and. that hr:r comPlaint rs submitted that the Petlt 10 iler ls conside ratictns. He further innocent o{ th.e offences alleged against him and has been implicated in a false case, and that the ailegations made in the entirely false and fabricated Therefo:-c' he (lourt to quash the proceedings again;t lhe complaint prayed the a\te petitioner b'v allowing this criminal petition

6. On tl':e other hand, learned Additional Public Prosiecutor opposed thc submissions made by the learned counsel lor the petitioner, stz.ting that the documents filed by the pe'itioner demonstratel-risownershipofthesubjectproperty.H()wever, the dispute s nentioned in the complaint appear to be related to the bounclztries of the subject property' As such' the matter 4 sKs", Crl.P.No.15768 of2024 a) requires investigation. Therefore, at this stage, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise, as the investigation is in its initial stage. Hence, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 7 . In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the allegations leveled against the petitioner pertain to offences under Sections 341 and 5O6 of ".) the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. However, the ingredients required to constitute the aforementioned offences are not suffrciently established in the complaint. The primary allegalion against the petitioner is that they obstructed the construclion activities of the de facto complainant on the grounds that the complainant was encroaching upon a public road. However, there are no specific allegations to suggest that the petitioner threatened the de facto .complainant. Furthermore, the documents submitted by the petitioner substantiate his lawful ownership of the subject property, thereby negating any question of encroachment on the complainant's property. w I 5 sKsrJ Crl.P,I{o. 15758i of 2024

8. In lighl of the above, the complaint appears to lack the material facts necessary to constitute the alleged ofi'ences. Additionaliv, the disputes between the parties seem to be civil in nature rather than criminal. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings :rgainst the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of larv and is accordingly liable to be quashed.

9. Accorclingly, this criminal petition is allowed ald the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.129O ol 2024 of Hayathnzrgar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, are hereby qu,eshed. As a sr:quel, miscellaneous petitions pending, 'f any, shall stand ckrsed. SD/. P PADMANABHA R DDY ASSISTANT REGIS R ,| I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIV Aclditional Metropolitan Magistrate at Cyberabad at Havathnagar' 2. The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachak'rnda 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o'Telangana at Hyderabad [CIUT]

4. One CC to S'i Aithanaboina Rama Rao Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Coptes Vt,DL W HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ) ORDER GRLP.No.15768 of 2024 /-= oB i6ti- S14 O 1,t ffn IM 2 (:t 3ert,}l I ALLOWING THE GR!MINAL PETITION \N ti t\