Telangana High Court
Vadrevu Uma Maheshwar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 27 June, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.126 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3680 of 2018 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, arising out of Crime No.347 of 2018 of Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 448, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Mr. A.Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Notice sent to respondent No.2- de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. Unclaimed notice is deemed to be proper service of notice. Perused the record.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 2008, the de facto complainant has purchased a plot bearing No.26/A situated in Sy.Nos.201 and 202 (hereinafter referred to as 'subject plot') of East Balaji Hills Colony, Boduppal (hereinafter referred to as Society'), from 2 one T.Narendra and got registered the same in his name vide document bearing No.7112 of 2008. Thereafter, he obtained necessary permissions from the HMDA and Municipal authorities for construction of house. On 08.04.2018 at 12.00 hours, the petitioners illegally trespassed into the subject plot and closed pillar pits with JCB. When the neighbouring plot owners reached the spot, on seeing them the petitioners fled away from the scene. Previously also, the petitioners threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences as the subject plot belongs to them. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.347 of 2018 was registered against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.3680 of 2018 for the aforesaid offences.
4. Submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners:
4.1. The petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with the offences alleged. The de facto complainant has purchased the subject plot from his vendor namely T.Narendra and his vendor has obtained LRS. In fact, plot Nos.26-A and 27-A are not existing in the sanctioned layout and the area in the said plots is a part of the public road. After giving due notice and opportunity to the de facto complainant's vendor viz., T.Narendra and after conducting due 3 inspection of the land, vide proceedings dated 28.01.2019, the HMDA authorities have revoked the LRS granted earlier. Hence, the question of trespassing into the plot of de facto complainant plot does not arise. 4.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the President and Additional Secretary of the Society. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the Advisor of Society and the petitioner-accused No.4 is a resident of Colony. Since the Colony people were objecting for raising constructions in the subject plot by making representations since 2011, the present complaint was foisted by the de facto complainant against the petitioners with all false allegations, to continue his illegal constructions over the subject land which is earmarked for public road. On a perusal of list of witnesses, it discloses that none of the witnesses are residents of the Colony, hence, their statements cannot be relied upon. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the 4 proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Initially, charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. However, towards the conclusion of the charge sheet, it was stated that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC.
7. For proper adjudication of the matter, Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC are extracted hereunder:
448. Punishment for house-trespass.--
Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.-- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 5
8. Having gone through the record, it is apparent that the alleged incident had happened on 08.04.2018. However, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant on 30.04.2018 i.e., with a delay of 22 days. The reason for such delay remained unexplained. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the President, Additional Secretary and Advisor of the Society. The petitioner-accused No.4 is a resident of Colony. The de facto complainant has purchased the subject plot from one T.Narendra in the year 2008. The Colony people, including the petitioners herein, were objecting for raising constructions in the subject plot by making representations since 2011.
9. A representation, dated 07.09.2018 was submitted by the petitioners to the HMDA authorities requesting to cancel the LRS and building permissions granted in respect of the subject plot, as it does not form part of the approved layout and was earmarked for public road. On such representation, the HMDA authorities have issued show cause notices, dated 17.10.2018 and 28.11.2018 to the vendor of de facto complainant. Since the said Narendra failed to submit his explanation, revocation order, dated 28.01.2019 was passed revoking the LRS as the subject land is a part of public road and not a regular plot. The Office of Municipality, Boduppal, has issued a notice under Section 344(6) of the 6 Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965, to the de facto complainant calling upon to submit his explanation why the building permission granted in his favour should not be cancelled. There were ongoing disputes between the parties with regard to the subject plot.
10. As seen from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is stated by the de facto complainant that the alleged incident of trespass was informed to him by LW-3/K.Swamy. But, in his statement, LW-3 stated that some persons have trespassed into the plot of de facto complainant and filled up pits. LW-4/P.Lokesh also stated in the similar lines to that of LW-3. LW-3 and LW-4 further stated that on enquiry, they came to know that the alleged incident was done by the petitioners herein. However, none of the witnesses have identified the petitioners herein as the persons who have committed the alleged offence and test identification parade was not conducted by the Police to establish the identify of accused.
11. Apart from that, Section 448 of IPC deals with punishment for house trespass. As per the proceedings of the HMDA authorities, it is clearly evident that the subject plot is a public road. Hence, the question of petitioners trespassing into the subject plot does not arise and the offence under Section 448 of IPC is not made out. Section 427 of IPC deals with offence of mischief causing damage to property. In the instant 7 case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners that they have committed any mischief causing damage to property, hence, the offence under Section 427 of IPC is also not made out. With regard to Section 506 of IPC, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners as to in what manner they have threatened the de facto complainant or others causing criminal intimidation.
12. From the above, it is clearly evident that the de facto complainant has purchased the subject plot from his vendor, which was earmarked for public road and not a part of approved layout. Instead of pursuing civil remedies against his vendor, the de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners herein, colouring a civil dispute into criminal offence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.3680 of 2018 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
8
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 27.06.2025 rev