The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the J\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR No. 318 of 2025 on the file of the PS Kosgi, Narayanpet District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in the FIR No. 318 of 2025 on the file of the PS Kosgi, Narayanpet District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RAJAGOPAL,-AVAN TAYI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none for the Flespondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER rJ-', AT ERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRTMINAL PETITION No.15874 of 2025 Date: 16.12.2025 Between: Chinthakunta Nagendrappa and two others AND ...Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.318 of 2025, on the file of Kosgi Police Station, Narayanpet District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused nos.2 to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(l) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 25(lXA) of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Heard Mr.Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 2 {'r

3. D,uring the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petition,:rs submitted that subsequent to filing of the present criminai petition, petitioner No.l/accused No.2 has been arrested. ln view of the same, learned counsel seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the criminal petition in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.2.

4. ln view of the same, the criminal petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 have not committed the offences and the'r were falsely implicated in the present crime, though they were not present at the alleged scene of of;fence. He lurther submittt:d that there are property disputes between the petitioner No.3/ac:used No.4 and respondent No.2. The father of respondent No.2 hird approached this Court and filed intra Court appeal namely W.A.No.l335 of 2024 and the Division Bench of this Court specifically held that in O.S.No.11 of 1997 a decree of perpeturtl injunction was granted in favour of petitioner No.3/ac,;used No.4 and O.S.No.5 of 1999 filed by the father of respond,snt No.2 seeking recovery of compensation in respect of : I i :{-, 3 very same subject property was dismissed on21.10.2000 and said judgment was confirmed in A.S.No.3416 of 2000, dated

12.12.2022. ln both the suits, i.e., O.S.Nos.l1 of 1977 and 5 of l999,the title of the father of respondent No.2 was not decided and granted perpetual injunction in favour of petitioner No.3/accused No.4 in O.S.No.1 I of 1977, basing upon the possession. However, father of respondent No.2 was granted liberty to work out his remedies before the competent Civil Court to establish his title over the subject property. Subsequent to said judgment, father of respondent No.2 nor respondent No.2 had approached the competent Civil Court to establish rights and title over the subject property. Petitioner No.3/accused No.4 had approached this Court bnd field Writ Petitionvide W.P.No.21724 of 2025, questioning the action of respondent Nos.Z to 4 therein in processing mutation application submitted by father of respondent No.2 and this Court on 05.07.2025, granted interim order, directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein not to process the online application submitted by the father of respondent No.2.

5.1. He further submitted that petitioner No.3/accused No.4 filed another writ petition namely W.P.No.35163 of 2025, questioning l, i i1tl i! 4 r\j_. the inar;tion of official respondents therein in not providing police protect:on to her in respect of the subject property admeasuring

24.16 p;ts, situated in Survey Nos.l958, i966/2 and 1967 of Kosgi Revenue Village, Kosgi Mandal, Narayanpet District, and in the said writ petition, this Court on 19. I i .2025 ordered notice to responrlent Nos.4 to 6 and the said writ petition is pending. Subsequent to filing of above two writ petitions, respondent No.2 filed present complaint on 27.11.2025 by making false allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 to dissolve the civil disputes which are pending between them. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioner Nos.2 ard 3laccused Nos.3 and 4. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 is a clear abuse of process of law.

6. I'er contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there exists a conspiracy between petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 and the other accused, and there are specific allegations against them that they, along with the other accused, jointly attacked respondent No.2 and his family members. Basing I I \ I I l \ r'\, 5 upon the written instructions received from the Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S.Kosgi, he submitted that during the course of investigation, police seized t,,vo knifes from accused Nos.5 and 6. He lurthe,r subrniLted that alI other accused, except petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accursed Nos.3 and 4, were anested and investigation is under progress. Whether the petitioner Nos.2 and 3laccused Nos.3 and 4 have cotnlnitted the offences or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Hence, at this Stage, petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of proceedings. \ \

7. , This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. tt is \ L not in dispute that there are property disputes pending between petitioner No.3/accused No.4 and respondent No.2. [t is also not in dispute that this Court disposed of writ appeal filed by the father of respondent No.2 on 27.11.2025. The record discloses that petitioner No.3/accused No.4 filed two writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.21724 and 35163 of 2025 and the same are pending. Upon perusal of the complaint, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3laccused Nos.3 and 4 Ir. d_' that they along with a group of persons, attacked respondent No.2 6 - and hi:; fanily members rvith deadly knives. Whether petitioner Nos.2 irnd 3/accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed the offences or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation.

8. [ior the fbregoing reasons, this Court dbes not find any ground to quaslr the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.3 arrd 4.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Fending miscellaneous applications, if dfly, shall stand closed. SD/- S.MALLIKAJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ^ nD . Ntf V

1. The Jurior_C_1vjt_Jud.ge-cum-Judicial tVlagistrate First Class at Kosgi 2. The SH), PS Kosgi, Narayanpet. 1 One CC to SRl. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyt Advocate tOpUCI ' ! One CC to Addl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies GE/PSL t \ \ HIGH COUR DATED:1 611',21202s ORDER CRLP.No.15874 ot 2025 1 IiE S o.J t n ? I 1a 71176 * DISMISSING'THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS -v