Telangana High Court

Jagarlamudi Venkat Ram vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2025

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO


                  + CRIMINAL PETITION No.703 of 2025


% Dated     09.04.2025

# Jagarlamudi Venkat Ram S/o Jagarlamudi
  Kotaiah, aged: 38 years, occ: Business, R/o Flat
  No.302, AK Heights Two, Near Masjid Banda
  Circle, Kondapur, Rangareddy District-500084
  and another.
                                                           ....Petitioners
                                    VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by Station House
  Officer,  P.S.Maheswaram,       through     Public
  Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana
  at Hyderabad and another.
                                                         ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners                : Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar

^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, Addl.P.P.

  Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Gaddam Srinivas



< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? CITATIONS:
   1.   2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1732
   2.   2020 SCC OnLine Ker 13847
   3.   (2021) 19 SCC 401
                                      2




THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.703 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,

'BNSS') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking

to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.22 of 2025 on the file

of the Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda

Commissionerate, for the alleged offences under Sections

329(3), 324(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.1 The case of prosecution in brief is that the de-facto

complainant lodged complaint with the police stating that

his grandfather, namely, late Chakali Balaiah owns land

of Ac. 1.04 gts. in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally village

and Ac. 5.33 guntas in Sy. No. 22 of Nagireddypally

village, thus, total extent of Ac. 6.37 guntas. The

Complainant's father has progeny of three sons, i.e.,

(1) Pedda Ramaiah, (2) Late Papaiah, (3) Late Laxmaiah

and the Complainant father is younger among them and

40 years back those three members divided the ancestral

land approximate shares and the complainant's father

received (i) Ac. 1.04 gts in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally

village, (ii) Ac.1.09 gts in Sy. No. 22 of Nagireddypally,

thus, the total extent of Ac. 2.13gts.

2.2. It is further stated that in the year 1996-1997,

complainant's father and his brothers quarreled with each

other regarding property share, as such in the year 2005,

they approached the Civil Court and filed a suit in

O.S.No.20 of 2005 along with I.A. No. 79 of 2005 and

obtained status quo order and the above case is pending

in the court.

2.3. It is also stated that one Vasudaika Reality venture

is adjacent to his land in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally

village and on 27.02.2024 Vasudaika Reality's venture

members were occupied 0-25 guntas from the

Complainant's land. Then they conducted survey in said

land and as per survey report, it was revealed that

Vasudaika venture persons occupied 0-25 guntas from

complainant's land. Ten months back Vasudaika reality

venture left above said 0-25 guntas to the Complainant.

2.4 It is further stated that on 01.12.2024 at about

09:30 hours, the Complainant along with his brother

Ramachandraiah went to their land and noticed that

Vasudaika Reality venture owner namely Jagarlamudi

Venkat Ram, Supervisor Srinivas and others illegally

trespassed into the complainant's land and erected a

precast wall and commenced road construction within the

complainant's land boundaries. Then the complainant

asked the same, and after discussion they agreed to

remove the precast wall and five days back they removed

some portion of precast wall, but not completely removed

it. When the complainant asked about the same, they

threatened him with dire consequences. Basing on the

said complaint, the Crime No.22 of 2025 was registered

for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel

for the petitioners, Mr. Krishna Karthik, learned counsel,

representing Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for

respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar

Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for respondent No.1-State.

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences

and they were falsely implicated as accused Nos.1 and 2

in this crime. Even according to the complaint, the nature

of allegations levelled against the petitioners is civil in

nature and respondent No.2 with an intention to resolve

the civil disputes lodged the complaint. He further

submitted that in order to attract an offense under Section

324(4) of BNS, which deals with "Mischief," an act must involve

causing damage or loss to property, and the act must be done with

the intent to cause wrongful loss or with knowledge that it is likely

to cause such loss. In the entire complaint, no where it is

mentioned that the petitioners have caused damage to the

property and therefore, the ingredients of Section 324(4) of

BNS are not attracted against the petitioners.

4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 even

without approaching the competent Civil Court has lodged

the present complaint with an intention to harass the

petitioners, though the police/investigating officers cannot

decide the civil dispute raised by respondent No.2. In

support of his contention, he relied upon the following

judgments;

i) Anilakumari vs. State of Kerala, represented by

Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and Others 1;

ii) Joseph Akkara and others vs. State of Kerala

represented by the Sub Inspector of Police and

another 2.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners have

encroached his land admeasuring 0-25 guntas covered by

Sy.No.155 of Nagireddypally Village and erected a precast

wall. When respondent No.2 questioned the same, they

removed part of the said precast wall, however, they have

not completely removed the same. When respondent No.2

questioned the same, the petitioners threatened him with

dire consequences. Moreover, the investigation is under

threshold and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to

seek quash the crime and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that

respondent No.2 made a specific allegations against the

petitioners and therefore, they are not entitled to seek

quash the crime, especially when the investigation is

1 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1732 2 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 13847

under progress. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

7. 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 lodged

a complaint on 12.01.2025 against the petitioners,

wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioners have

encroached the land admeasuring Ac.0-25 guntas covered

by Sy.No.155 and erected a precast wall. When

respondent No.2 questioned the same, they removed part

of the said precast wall, however, they have not completely

removed the entire precast wall. When respondent No.2

questioned the same, the petitioners threatened him with

dire consequences.

8. That the contention raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioners that respondent No.2 had filed a suit in

O.S.No.20 of 2005 and the same is pending before the

competent Civil Court and when the said case is pending

before the Civil Court, respondent No.2 is not entitled to

lodge a criminal complaint to settle the civil dispute is

concerned, respondent No.2 filed the above said suit in

O.S.No.20 of 2005 seeking partition and allotment of

respective shares against his family members only and

respondent No.2 has not filed any civil suit against the

petitioners. Mere pendency of the civil suit between the

family members is not a ground for seeking quash the

proceedings in the present crime.

9. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioners in Anilakumari (supra) and Joseph

Akkara and others (supra), the High Court of Kerala held

that, when the civil cases are pending between the parties,

initiation of the criminal proceedings is abuse of process

of law and the same are not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the case on hand on the sole ground

that respondent No.2 has not filed any civil case against

the petitioners and the parties have not brought to the

notice of this Court that civil cases are pending between

them.

10. It is pertinent to mention that in Neeharika

Infrastructure (P) Limited v. State of Maharashtra 3, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.

3 (2021) 19 SCC 401

Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

11. In the present case, the investigation is not yet

completed, therefore, at this juncture the Court cannot go

into the merits of the allegations that are mentioned in the

F.I.R. Therefore, premature conclusion based on facts

mentioned in the FIR would amounts to abuse of process of

law. It is already stated supra, that there is specific

allegation against the petitioners that they have

encroached the land of 0-25 guntas covered by Sy.No.155

belonging to respondent and constructed a precast wall

and they removed only part of the said precast wall and

not removed the entire wall. Further when respondent

No.2 questioned, the petitioners threatened him with dire