Telangana High Court
Mohammed Azhar Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 12 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in
C.C.No.23 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners
stating that on 03.10.2023 at Siricilla Road, Kamareddy, the
accused persons, namely Azar Khan, Lateef Khan, Imran
Khan, Imroz, Feroz, Zahed, Shaker, Maulu, Gireddy
Shivareddy, Suthari Laxmi, Suthari Poshavva, Saddam, and
Md. Sirajoddin, allegedly trespassed into the land measuring
Ac.0.43 guntas in Sy.No.43/1/2 belonging to Thakur
Sadhekar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., damaged the fencing, gate, and wall
causing a loss of about Rs.2,00,000/-, and threatened to kill
the complainant. The land had been purchased by the
SKS,J
company from Suthari Laxmi and Poshavva in the year 2012,
and they had been in possession since then. In the year 2020,
Suthari Laxmi and Poshavva allegedly executed a fraudulent
sale deed in favour of Gireddy Shivareddy, for which a case in
Cr.No.278 of 2020 was registered. In the year 2022,
Shivareddy sold the land to Zahed, who later sold it to Azar
Khan. The complainant alleged that the accused created fake
documents with an intention to unlawfully take possession of
the land.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.581 of 2023 for the offences punishable
under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and
after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide
C.C.No.23 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Kamareddy. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the
proceedings against them.
4. Heard Sri K. Karunakar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
SKS,J
respondent No.1 - State and Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioner No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the
property in question and was protected by a subsisting
injunction order. Hence, the offences under Sections 447,
427, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC could not be invoked
against the true owner. He further submitted that the de
facto complainant, without any title, possession, or right,
attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioners on
03.10.2023 in collusion with others, against whom the
injunction order was already operating. He further submittd
that the petitioners had lodged several complaints to the
police against such miscreants, but no effective action was
taken and he denied the allegation in the charge sheet that
the petitioners had surrendered before the police and
confessed their guilt, and called upon the prosecution to
strictly prove the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
complaint itself disclosed the fraudulent conduct of
respondent No.2, and that the essential ingredients of the
SKS,J
alleged offences were absent and that the claim of respondent
No.2, if any, was monetary in nature and purely civil, for
which the remedy lay in the civil Court. He further contended
that the property of the petitioners was already covered by an
injunction order in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2023 on
the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy,
wherein respondent No.2 was the henchman of defendant
No.1. He further contended that prior FIRs, including FIR
No.568 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023 and FIR No.592 of 2023
dated 08.10.2023, had been registered against respondent
No.2 and his associates for similar acts of trespass and
assault, including an attack causing grievous injuries to one
advocate and that the present complaint was filed with an
intent to harass the petitioners, subvert the process of law,
and forcibly take possession of the property, thereby
constituting a misuse of the legal process.
7. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the
judgments in the cases of Sulochana Devi Agarwala v.
District Magistrate, Upsuryaveer Singh @ Tillan v. State of
U.P., Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand 1, and Usha
(2013) 11 SCC 673
SKS,J
Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal 2, to contend that when
disputes are essentially civil in nature and are given the
colour of criminal offences to harass the accused, the Court
must invoke its inherent powers to quash such proceedings to
secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the
petitioners are serious in nature. There are several cases
pending against each other. Therefore, at this stage, quashing
of proceedings against them does not arise. Hence, prayed
the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter
affidavit denying the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners stating that the claim of the
petitioners rested on an injunction order granted in
I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2023 by the learned
Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, which was only an ex
SKS,J
parte ad-interim order passed on 08.06.2023. He further
submitted that the petitioners wrongly relied on the
withdrawal of O.S.No.61 of 2020, whereas respondent No.2
was never a party to that suit. He further submitted that the
petitioner claimed possession over land in Sy.No.41/1
admeasuring Ac.0-27 gts at Sircilla Road, Kamareddy, which
was also the subject matter of O.S.No.7 of 2023. In that suit,
the petitioner had filed I.A.No.707 of 2024 seeking
amendment to claim recovery of possession, but the said
petition was dismissed by order dated 28.03.2025, granting
liberty to file a fresh suit. This dismissal order, according to
counsel, was suppressed in the present case. He contended
that respondent No.2 was not a party to O.S.No.707 of 2024
or O.S.No.61 of 2020, and therefore, those proceedings could
not be relied upon against him. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
10. In light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on
record, it is noted that the allegations against the petitioners
are for offences under Sections 447, 427, and 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. The record reveals that civil suits have
SKS,J
been filed by both parties. The suit filed by the de facto
complainant was dismissed as withdrawn, whereas the
present petitioners filed I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.07 of
2023, in which the trial Court, on 08.06.2023, granted an
injunction order in favour of the petitioners. The alleged
incident occurred subsequently, on 03.10.2023.
11. Whether or not the de facto complainant was a party to
the said civil suit, the trial Court recorded the possession of
the petitioners and granted an injunction order in their
favour. Further, even according to the de facto complainant,
the petitioners purchased the property from one Gireddy
Shivareddy. The allegation that such execution was
fraudulent is not an issue for determination in the present
proceedings, and, as on date, the title document stands in
favour of the petitioners.
12. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the
petitioners trespassed into the land of the de facto
complainant, particularly in view of the subsisting injunction
order in their favour and the fact that there are pending civil
disputes between the parties, in which the civil Court will
decide the issue of ownership. The continuation of the
SKS,J
criminal proceedings, therefore, amounts to an abuse of the
process of law and is liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.23 of 2025 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kamareddy, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 12.08.2025
SAI
