The High Court · 2025

Dy tts pubttc prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

2. Byreddy Radha Reddy, S/o Rangareddy, Aged about 79 years. Occuoation_ Rtd...Teacher, Ryo H.No. 1-1gli,-Sirsinailanit. vittige, k,irdr;;6ilfii;i, Siddipet, Telangana ...RESPONDENT/ Defacto Complainant Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Fetition, the High court may oe pleased_to quash the proceedings in cc No. 1672oF 2024,o-n the file of'prr. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, Siddipet District. l.A. NO:1OF 2025 Petition under section s2g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal-petition,the High court may ue ql_eas9d to extend the stay order passed on o3-01-2o2s in lA2l2i24 in cRLp. No. 15943 oF 2024, untll further orders, pending disposal of the main criminal petition. l.A. NO:2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal peiition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.3 in cc No. 1612 oF 2024, oithe fite of prl. Judiciat First Class Magistrate, Siddipet District. { This Petition t;oming on for hearing,upon perusing ttre Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the argumenrs of sri A. M. RAo Advocate for the petitioner and sri M. vivekananda Reddy, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri Mahesh Mamindra, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CRIMI NAL PETITION NO: 15949 OF 2021 Between: H,T:!i,l$:{:$l}T,1',H{"^i11[t:ff *i.:ffi :",ofJj'&Iiliii?i?#t,ff#l?; Hyderabad, Telangana AND ...PETITIONl:R/ACCUSED No.2 1 The state of reranoana, by its pub tic prose;utoi, His h Respondent lfrrgu_gh sHo, ,r rown porice stztron-siddipet Rep. -c";r; ;ii;il;;;; ;i Hy;;; ;;;;:'-v':vcL, 'RIJ:+:,"fiX1:A;",1i[Yi#"?"1f,11v"#Ld,ir::,9ff fi:,_9:yr:rs Siddipet, Telangana ...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under siection 52g of BNSS praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar p.fition, the High court;;y;. qlT"99lg Quash the proceedings in cc r,ro. rozi or zozc. rn the fite of prt. Judicial First Ctass Magistrate, SiiOipet, SiOAilerOistrict. - l.A. NO: 20F 2024 Petition under section- _529 of BNSS praying that in *re circumstances stated in the Memorancrum of Grounds ot criminai 'peition,the Hun c"rrt ,lv o. pleased to stay a, further -proceedings inciroing the ap cearance of the petitioner/Accused No.zr in cc No. 1672 6F zozii,-on the fire o., prr. Judiciar First Class Magistrate, Siddipet. This Petition corning on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments rr sri A. M. RAo Advocate for the petitioner and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri M rhesh Mamindra, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15982 OF 2021 Between: Byreddy Kishore Reddy, S/o Ramana Reddy, Aged about 49 years, Occupation Pvt. S6rvice, Rl/o Sirisinagandla Village, Kondapaka mandal, Presently at H. No. 1- 24- 45/1, Maruthi Nagar, Lothkunta, Secunderabad, Telangana ...PETITIONER/ACGUSED No.1 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Through SHO, lll Town Police Station- Siddipet Rep by its Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. .. . Respondent

2. Byreddy Radha Reddy, S/o Rangareddy, Aged about 79 years, Occupation: Rid. Teacher, Rl/o H. No. 1- 1911, Sirsinagandla Village, Kondapaka Mandal, siddipet, relangana ...RESPoNDENJ6Di,r?FffJf;Nr Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased toto Quash the proceedings in CC NO. 1672 OF 2024, On the file of Prl' Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, Siddipet District,. .A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/Accused No. 1 in CC NO. 1672 OF 2024, On the file of Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the MemorAndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. M. RAO Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Mahesh Mamindla, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following Common Order : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15943 15949 & 1598 2 of2O24 COMMON ORDER: Since a common issue arises in all these crinr:Lnal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together b;r way of this common order.

2. These criminal petitions are filed seeking _r i quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused I,los.1 to 3, respectively, in C.C.No.16T2 of 2024 on the hle cf the learned Principal Judi<:ial Magistrate of First class, Sidc ipet District, registered for the offences punishable under Secticrs 442, 422, 29O and 506 rered with 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1ti6O (for short lPC).

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.t2024 the de facto complainimt, lodged a complaint against ther petitioners before the Police stating that he has been the pattadar of land measuring Ac.7 05 guntas in Survey Nos.338/AA/3 and 340/AA since 1991. To secure the boundaries of his lancL, he got it surveyed by the District Inspector of Survey on 14.)3.2023 and. had earlier entered into an agreement regarding the b<>r.rndary with 2 Reddy, in tl:e his neighbor and farnily member, B. Kishore presence of the village Sarpanch on 31.O5.2021. He informed his neighbors in advalce and engaged workers to erect fencing on 19.05.2024 based on the suwey report. However, B. Kishore Reddy, along with his sister v. Jyothi and 6-g otrrers, obstructed tlre fencing work, abused and pushed the son of the de facto complainant, threatened the workers, removed the fencing poles, and forcibly stopped the work. The d.e facto complatnant also alleged that on the night of 1a.O5.2O24, B. Kishore Reddy trespassed onto the land and ploughed it urithout permission, thereby causing damage. Tine de facto complainalt, being a senior citizen with health issues, stated he faced serious hardships despite being the lawfr:I owner with boundaries fixed by the government surveyor.

4. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.I62 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Seclions 447, 427, 29O and 506 read with 34 of IpC and after completion of investigation, they rrred charge sheet, vide c.c.No .1622 of 2024 before the learned principal Judiciat Magistrate of First class, Siddipet District. Aggrieved thereby, the petilioners/accused Nos. I to 3 respectively frled tJle present criminal petitions. 3

5. Heard liri A.M. Rao, learned counsel appearirrg on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Fleddy, learned Assistant Pul:lic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State ald Sri Mahesh Mamindla, learned corrnsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 in all the cases.

6. l,earned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire case was false and based on a civil dispute, whic l'r was wrongly given a criminal color and that the petitioner/accused No.3, Pulla Venkataiah, v,as not named in ttre original FIR nor \,{/ere there alty specifrc allegations agqinst him, yet he was later included in the chargesheet v,ithout any material evidence or lawfuL1 justification. He further submitted that the complainant failed rr produce any documents proving ownership or possession of the land, which is essential for rnaking out a case of criminal trespas $ and ttrat the alleged incident of ploughing the land also did not satis$ the legal requirements of criminal trespass under Section 441 IPC, as there was no intent to intimidate, insult, or commit any of [r:nce. 7 . t earned counsel for the petitioners conte:rded that the dispute was .curely personal and related to a brrr-rndary issue, which should have been resolved through civil pr<rceedings arrd that the Investigating Oflicer failed to follow proper procedure, did not visit the scene of the offence, and did n:1. collect any t 4 substantial or corroborative evidence. He further contended that tJre complainant misused the crimina.l justice system to harass the petitioners. In support of his submissions, he placed reliaace upon various Judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Har5rana v. BhaJan Lal, Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka, and Jaswant Siagh v. State of punJab, stating that criminal proceedings based on civil disputes should be quashed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing these criminal petitions. 8' on the other hand, learned Assistarrt pubric prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for ttre petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires trial. At this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss these criminal petitions

9. Leamed counsel for respondent No.2 in all the cases filed counter alfidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that ttre petitioners has not produced any credible or unimpeachable material to justiff quashing of the proceedings, and in fact, has failed to furnish even tlre certified copy of the charge sheet in c.c.No. 1672 of 2o24, \ 5 which undenrrines the petition itself. He further submitted that mere invocation of Section 482 Cr.p.C. cannot be zLll.owed to derail or obstruct the due course of law, particularly whr::r a pima facie case has alrr:afly been made out against tJre petitioner based on materials collected during investigation. In s;upport of his submissions, he relied upon the decisions irL the case of Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koleyr, statingt that while the High Court can quash proceedings if the e ccused places unimpeachable documents that demolish the case, in the present case, no such documents have been placed. The 1x:titioners have merely made bald assertions without any material to back their defence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings mus- be allowed to continue in accordance with law. Further, in thr case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2 wherein the Hcn,lrle Supreme Court laid down a four-step test to assess whether quashing is justified. He submitted that none of ttre steps have, been satisfied in the present case. There is no "sterling or impec:able" materia_l produced, the factual allegations in the complaint have not been ruled out, ancl the petitioners, defence is wholly ur substantiated. Hence, quashing the proceedings at this stage wo-lld amount to prematurely souttling a valid prosecution. He furtt er relied upon ' 1zorr1 a scc :sr '1zor:; I scc eao , 6 tlle judgment in pratibha v. Raneshwari Devi3, to assert that the pendency or possibilitSr of civil remedies cannot tre a ground to interfere with criminal proceedings, especiaJly when criminaJity is alleged and prima facie supported by the materials on record. He submitted that criminal ald civil remedies are not mutually exclusive and carl proceed independently.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 have a history of litigation and repeated attempts to interfere with the lawful possession of respondent No.2. In fact, a subsequent incident of trespass and damage was reported on 24.10.2024, which further establishes the continuing criminal intent of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is not only premature and devoid of merit but also reflects a malicious attempt to misuse the judicial process and evade trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions. I 1. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that petitioners are arrayed accused Nos.1, 2, and 3 in C.C No.1672 of 2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427,29O, and, 5O6 read with Section 34 of IpC and the learned counsel for petitioners contended that accused No.3 was t lzoozl rz scc los \\ 7 merely prese.:rt at the scene of the alleged offence and that accused No.3, along u,ith accused Nos.1 and 2, allegedly trespassed into the land and damaged the fencing. However, accus:r:l No.3's name does not appear in the original complaint, nor is ir mentioned by any of the uitnesses. The statements of indepenclent witnesses indicate that accused No.3 was a labourer engaged in work on the date of the i.cident and according to the Investigzrting officer, it was accused No. 1 and certain other persons who caused the damage, and there is no specifrc reference to the involvement of accused No.3 in the said incident. Although the clLrerge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 3, it does not di sr:lose the basis on which accused No.3 was implicated. The char5j: sheet merely states that cr:rtain documents and a pendrive co::taining video footage of ttrr: incident were received, but it lails to specifu the contents of th,e pendrive or how they implicated accrrsed No.3. The allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 are that they trespassed into the land of the de-facto complainant and damal3ed the fencing and that the de-facto complainalt and accused Nos.1 and 2 are owners of acljacent properties artd are related. The d.e_facto complainant claims that a survey was conducted to identigr the boundaries. Elased on the survey report, he was ferrcing his land when the alleged incident occurred. However, th,: Investigating Oflicer has no:- filed any document along with the clrarge sheet to \ \ 8 establish that the land in Sy.Nos.338/AA/3 and 340/AA belonged to the de-facto complainant since 1991, nor he produced any evidence to show t1:at the accused trespassed into tlre complainant's land. When both parties own adjacent lands, the question of ownership and boundary cannot be conclusively determined in criminal proceedings, as such the allegations and averments made in tJre complaint are insullicient to establish the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, conLinuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and tJ.e same are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 1672 of 2024 on the hle of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet District. 2. The Station House Officer, lll Town police Station , Siddipet, Siddipet Dist ' Iyot"?r";:: 4. One CC to SRI. A. M. RAO, Advocate tOpUCl Public Prosecutor, Hish court for the state of retansana at One CC to SRt. MAHESH MAMINDLA, Advocate tOpUCl 5 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 COMMON ORDER CRL.PETITION Nos. 15943. 15949 & 15982 0F 2024 /+ /n l,i\i t*7o . i i1:- Sj f/l ; liB DII 295 \i-t '/- li I4* ./zo,// f 4 ALLOWING THE ALI, CRIMINAL PETITIONS.