Telangana High Court
Laiq Ali vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10915 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.495 of
2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court") for the
offences punishable under Sections 448, 509, 354, 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C.
2. Heard Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel representing
Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1-State and Mr.M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the
owner of H.No.12-2-823/C/10 situated at SBI Colony,
Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad and respondent No.2 is the owner of
H.No.12-2-253/C/14, which is on the southern side of the house
of the petitioner; that respondent No.2 had illegally opened the
gate and ventilators into the passage of the house property of the
petitioner during November, 2010 and the petitioner filed a
complaint before the GHMC authorities on 13.12.2010. The
GHMC authorities have decided to demolish the gate and
ventilators erected by respondent No.2 and requested the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, West Zone, vide letter dated 13.10.2010,
for proving Police protection for the demolition operation. The
proposed demolition did not take place on 13.10.2010 for some
reasons not known to the petitioner; that respondent No.2 filed a
complaint dated 19.12.2010 before the Station House Officer, Asif
Nagar Police Station stating that the petitioner has attacked him
and his family members along with 50 gundas and threatened
the ladies and children in his house with dire consequences;
Later the same was registered as F.I.R.No.350 of 2010 and the
petitioner herein is accused No.1 therein.
4. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has also filed
O.S.No.711 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking Permanent Injunction
restraining the petitioner from constructing wall abutting the
gates on the northern side of the house property of respondent
No.2. Respondent No.2 filed I.A.No.4240 of 2010 in O.S.No.711 of
2010 seeking Temporary Injunction, but the I.A. was dismissed
on 18.01.2011. Since, the GHMC is not taking action against the
gate and ventilators opened by respondent No.2, the petitioner
filed W.P.No.1300 of 2012 seeking a direction to the GHMC
authorities to cause demolition of the illegally erected gate and
ventilators by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also filed
W.P.No.4811 of 2012 against the GHMC authorities to declare
their action in proposing to demolish the gate and ventilators
opened by him illegally. The above said Writ Petitions were
disposed of by way of a common order dated 10.04.2012 and this
Court had dismissed W.P.No.1300 of 2012 leaving it open to the
GHMC authorities to follow the due process of law for causing
demolition of illegal structures made by respondent No.2; that on
05.09.2012, the petitioner once again gave a complaint to the
GHMC authorities and as no action was taken, he filed
W.P.No.31526 of 2012 before this Court which was ultimately
disposed of on 09.10.2012 directing the GHMC authorities to
consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate
orders.
5. It is further stated that the GHMC authorities have issued a
letter dated 16.11.2012 to the petitioner saying that the gate
opened by respondent No.2 is illegal and unauthorized and that
he has to remove it within seven (7) days failing which an action
will be taken; that GHMC authorities have issued notice dated
29.10.2012 to respondent No.2 seeking to remove the gate which
was erected illegally or else action will be taken. The police have
investigated the F.I.R.No.350 of 2010 and filed charge sheet on
16.07.2016 after six (6) years of registration of F.I.R. and the
same is numbered as C.C.No.495 of 2018 which is the
proceedings impugned herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
dispute is civil-in-nature and converted into criminal case at the
instance of respondent No.2. Therefore, relying on the decision
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Alias Bala and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 1, he seeks to
allow the Criminal Petition.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, by filing the counter
affidavit, submits that O.S.No.711 of 2010 filed by him seeking
the relief of Perpetual Injunction is decreed vide judgment dated
19.12.2023 before the learned XI Additional Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, at Hyderabad and that even after suffering a decree
of Perpetual Injunction, the petitioner is intimidating respondent
No.2 by parking his vehicle across the gates. Therefore, he
(2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 734
submits that the matter requires adjudication at length and
seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
8. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned
counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires a
full-fledged trial. However, as sought for by the petitioner, the
appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with in C.C.No.495 of
2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad. The appearance of the petitioner is
dispensed with subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioner
stating that in his absence, the proceedings conducted by his
counsel will not be disputed by him in any manner. However, the
petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when
his presence is required. In the event of failure of the petitioner to
appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing with his
appearance stands vacated automatically.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However,
in view of the urgency expressed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude
trial in C.C.No.495 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of one year from today.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 09.04.2025
ESP
