Telangana High Court
Gangam Srikanth, vs The State Of Telangana, on 7 April, 2025
THE HONOURBLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 735 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.173 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate at Bhongir.
2. Heard Mr. B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Nouman, learned counsel representing Mr. M.A.
Mujeeb, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Syed Yasar
Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1 State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have not committed any offence and they were
implicated falsely in the crime. The Investigating Officer simply
extracted the allegations made in the complaint and filed charge
sheet. Respondent No.2 in his complaint or the Investigation
Officer in the charge sheet has not specifically mentioned whether
respondent No.2 is owner of the subject property. When there are
no specific allegations in the complaint or in the charge sheet that
the petitioners have trespassed into the open plot located at the
outskirts of Kondamudugu village and damaged the boundary
stone, the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not applicable against them.
3.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. Anilakumari v. State of Kerala represented by
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and
others 1; and
2. Joseph Akkara and others v. State of Kerala
rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police and
another 2.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted
that respondent No.2 has specifically stated in his complaint that
he is owner of the property i.e, open plot bearing No.386 located at
the outskirts of Kondamadugu village covered in Sy.Nos.562, 565
and 583, admeasuring 477 sq. yards, and the petitioners
trespassed into his land and damaged the boundary stones.
Hence, the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the
IPC are attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that
LWs.2 and 3 are also specifically stated before the Investigating
Officer that the petitioners have entered into the plot of respondent
No.2 and damaged the boundary stones, and the same has to be
2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1732
2020 SCC OnLine Ker 13847
adjudicated during the course of trial. Hence, at this stage, the
petitioners are not entitled to seek quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.173 of 2024.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there
are specific allegations against the petitioners and the same has to
be adjudicated during the course of trial and the petitioners are not
entitled to seek quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2024.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on
08.10.2023, wherein he specifically stated that he is the owner of
the property, i.e., plot No. 386 situated in Sy.Nos.562, 565 and 583
at the outskirts of Kondamadugu village, and the petitioners have
criminally trespassed into the above said property and removed the
boundary stones. The Investigating Officer after conducting
investigation by recording the statements of the witnesses, filed
charge sheet, wherein LWs.2 and 3 stated that respondent No.2 is
the owner of the property and the petitioners have criminally
trespassed into the plot of respondent No.2 and demolished the
boundary stones. There are specific allegations are levelled against
the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the
offence or not has to be decided after full-fledged trial only and this
Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of
2024.
7. Insofar as the other contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the entire allegations are levelled
against the petitioners are civil in nature and respondent No.2
ought to have approached the competent Civil Court to establish
his rights by relying upon the above said judgments supra are
concerned, the same are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the ground that there are specific
allegations against the petitioners that they criminally trespassed
into the plot of respondent No.2 and removed the boundary stones.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not find any
ground to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2024 on the file
of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 07.04.2025
mar
