Telangana High Court
Mohammed Imran Khan vs The State Of Telangana, on 12 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4218 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
Crime No.591 of 2023 of Kamareddy Town Police Station,
Kamareddy District, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 324 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 before the Police. On
08.10.2023, at Siricilla Road, Kamareddy, the complainant,
Kairamkonda Satyanarayana, Manager of Thakur Sadhekar
Company Pvt. Ltd., reported that he had been working in the
Beedi company for about 30 years and that the company's
owner, Thakur Dayanand of Pune, owned Ac.0.43 guntas of
land in Sy.No.43/1/2, purchased in the year 2004 from Suthari
Poshavva and Suthari Laxmi. He stated that on 29.07.2020, one
Gireddy Shivareddy created fake documents in respect of the
said land for unlawful possession, for which FIR No.278 of 2020
SKS,J
was registered and was still pending. On the date of the
incident, while construction work was in progress on the land,
Mohammed Imran Khan of Secunderabad, along with about 10
others, allegedly came to the site, took away tools from the
labourers, abused them in filthy language, and threatened to
kill the complainant and the workers with a gaddapara
(crowbar). The complainant informed the police, who arrived
and temporarily pacified the situation, but after the police left,
the accused again repeated the threats and assaults, causing
injuries to Mohammed Nadhim, Mohammed Adnad, Sk. Shoib,
and Md. Sopyan. Basing on the said complaint, the Police
registered a case in Crime No.591 of 2023 of Kamareddy Town
Police Station, Kamareddy District, for the offences punishable
under Sections 324 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to
quash the proceedings against them.
3. 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
respondent No.1 - State and Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners' brother, Mohammed Azhar Khan, was the owner
and possessor of the property in question and was protected by
a subsisting injunction order granted in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in
O.S. No.7 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Kamareddy. Despite this, the de facto
complainant, without any title, possession, or right, attempted
to encroach upon the said property on 03.10.2023 and again on
08.10.2023, in collusion with the eastern neighbour. He further
submitted in both incidents, the brother of the petitioners acted
only to protect his life and property when respondent No.2 and
his associates attacked with rods and sticks after throwing chilli
powder, causing injuries. Counsel argued that the right to
defend one's life and property is recognised in law and that the
petitioners had also lodged several complaints with the police
against these miscreants, but no action was taken.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
impugned Alteration Memo dated 10.10.2023, changing the
charges from Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC to Sections 326, 506
r/w 34 IPC, was an afterthought intended to convert a civil
dispute into a criminal case to grab the property. The petitioners
SKS,J
disputed the medical report relied on by the prosecution and
referred to video evidence showing that the injured person, Md.
Nadeem, was one of the attackers. He pointed out
inconsistencies in the complaint date, noting that it appeared to
have been antedated by a month and that the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences were absent and that
respondent No.2, being a henchman of a defendant in O.S.No.7
of 2023, had no possession over the property. Reference was
made to prior FIRs, including FIR No.568/2023 and FIR
No.592/2023, involving similar attacks by respondent No.2 and
his associates, one of which resulted in grievous injuries to an
advocate. He further contended that respondent No.2 had
colluded with one Syed Imran, a person with influence over local
police and a history of violent acts as reflected in FIR
No.683/2022.
6. 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
Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal 2, to contend that when
(2013) 11 SCC 673
SKS,J
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.
7. 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.
8. 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 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
SKS,J
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.
9. In light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record,
it is evident that the allegations against the petitioners are for
offences under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the
IPC. The case record includes an injury certificate issued by the
competent medical authorities indicating that the injuries
sustained are grievous in nature. The complaint, supported by
the medical evidence, discloses prima facie the commission of
SKS,J
cognizable offences and raises serious allegations against the
petitioners which require thorough investigation and
adjudication during trial.
10. The issues raised by the petitioners regarding title,
possession, and alleged civil disputes cannot, at this stage, be
grounds to stifle a legitimate prosecution when the material on
record discloses the existence of triable issues. The defences
and rival claims can be established only upon appreciation of
evidence during trial, and it would be premature for this Court
to enter into disputed questions of fact in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court
does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the
proceedings against thepetitionrs and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 12.08.2025
SAI
