Telangana High Court

Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 February, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

         CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5708 & 5709 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing

Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the

matters, Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and

Mr. Pappu Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.

Anirudh Sadhu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Crl.P. No.5708 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners to quash the

proceedings in Crime No.190 of 2024 of Chevella Police Station,

Cyberabad Commissionerte, while Crl.P. No.5709 of 2024 is filed to

quash the proceedings in Crime No.175 of 2024 of Mokila Police

Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

Crl.P. No.5708 OF 2025:

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 in

Crime No.190 of 2024 and Crime No.175 of 2024. The petitioners and

respondent No.2 - de facto complainant in both the said crimes are one

and the same except petitioner No.4. Even the offences alleged against

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

them in both the Crimes are also same i.e., Sections - 447, 427, 341, 386,

420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners in Crime

No.190 of 2024 are as follows:

i) Respondent No.2 - de facto complainant purchased the land to

an extent of Acs.20.20 guntas in Survey Nos.32, 35, 36 and 38, situated

at Erlapally Village.

ii) There is a function hall in the said land on the name of his

father. He is in possession of the land.

iii) In the year 2023, his neighbouring plot owners, petitioner

Nos.1 to 3, came to his land and entered into half of his land illegally and

demolished the function hall.

iv) When he went there, petitioner No.4, watchman of petitioner

Nos.1 to 3 along with other persons, who are known as Bihar Gang,

stopped him from entering into his lands and threatened him with

dangerous weapons to kill. This was happened several times. Even on

22.05.2024 evening around 4.20 P.M. also.

v) Therefore, respondent No.2 sought to take necessary action

against the petitioners herein.

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

5. Basing on the report given by respondent No.2, the police of

Chevella registered the aforesaid Crime No.190 of 2024 for the aforesaid

offences.

6. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

The petitioners filed Crl.P. No.5708 of 2024 to quash the aforesaid

crime contending as follows:

i) While lodging the report with police, respondent No.2

suppressed the pendency of civil cases between them, such as O.S.

No.64 of 2019 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, filed

by respondent No.2 against the petitioners seeking cancellation of sale

deed bearing document No.2611 of 2016, dated 23.05.2016 in respect of

the subject property and other documents in respect of other properties;

O.S. No.1227 of 2022 filed by son of respondent No.2 herein against

respondent No.2 and the petitioners herein seeking declaration of sale

deed bearing document Nos.2975, 2976 and 2974 of 2016 as null and

void and for perpetual injunction; O.S. No.324 of 2023 is also filed by

the son of respondent No.2 herein against the petitioners seeking

perpetual injunction.

ii) Taking advantage of absence of the petitioners herein and their

watchman alone was looking after the subject land, on 16.04.2023

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

respondent No.2 along with others attacked by bringing unsocial

elements and abused him in filthy language and in the caste name.

Therefore, their watchman also lodged a case against respondent No.2

and others and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.137 of

2023 on 20.04.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections - 452,

427, 323, 504 and 526 read with 34 IPC and Sections - 3 (1) (r) (s) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 2015.

iii) The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the

offences alleged against the petitioners.

iv) The aforesaid complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 with

an intention to grab the remaining land and even threatened them on

15.03.2024 to get the issues settled.

v) Converting private civil disputes between the parties into

criminal proceedings cannot be permitted. In support of the same, he has

placed reliance on B. Venkateswaran v. T. Bakthavatchalam1 and

Gulam Mustafa v. The State of Karnataka 2 and Usha Chakraborty

v. State of West Bengal 3.

. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

. 2022 LawSuit (AP) 1027

. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings in

the aforesaid crime.

Crl.P. No.5709 OF 2025:

7. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 in

Crime No.175 of 2024 of Mokila Police Station, Cyberabad

Commissionerate. The very same respondent No.2 gave police report

with the said police station against the petitioners herein alleging as

under:

i) He along with his partners legally own and possess the lands in

various survey numbers i.e., Survey Nos.349, 351, 358, 359, 360, 362,

367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 377, 386, 387, 388, 390,

391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 397, 398, 399, 400, 425, 435, 439, 441 and 444

etc., situated at Tangatoor Village of Shankerpally Mandal under the

name 'Chaitanya Resorts.

ii) They developed the said lands into farm plots and sold them to

prospective buyers. The respective buyers are in possession and

enjoyment of the same.

iii) In 2016, he was introduced to petitioner No.1, the then MLA

of Armoor Constituency and his wife, petitioner No.2. They showed

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

interest in his resort and accordingly proposed a property exchange. An

MOU was also signed on 15.06.2016.

iv) According to the said MOU, respondent No.2 and his partners

transferred several acres of land to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, but they

failed to fulfill their part of obligation and, on the other hand, the

petitioners threatened and harassed him and his partners.

v) The petitioners also made attempts to grab the remaining land

of respondent No.2 and his partners and further threatened him and his

partners with dire consequences using their political connections and

goons. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 gave police reports dated

18.01.2023, 05.02.2021 and 10.06.2022, but no action has been taken.

vi) On 24.12.2023, respondent No.2 received death threats through

mobile phone bearing No.9705002139. On 15.03.2024, he was taken

forcibly and assaulted and coerced him to hand over the property

documents and sign on blank papers.

8. Basing on the report given by respondent No.2, the police of

Mokila registered the aforesaid Crime No.175 of 2024 for the aforesaid

offences.

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

9. The petitioners herein filed the aforesaid Crl.P. No.5709 of

2024 to quash the proceedings in the said crime reiterating the

contentions raised in Crl.P. No.5708 of 2024.

10. There are serious allegations against the petitioners herein.

They have threatened the 2nd respondent and his family members with

dire consequences. They tried to grab the property. There are blanks in

the agreements and MOU. The transactions are cash transactions. The 1st

petitioner is former and using his influence is trying to grab the property

belongs to the petitioners. In the said course of action, the petitioners

trespassed into the land of the petitioners criminally. They have also

cheated them. They have also restrained the watchman wrongfully for

the purpose of extortion. They have threatened to kill the watchman of

the 2nd respondent. Investigation is pending. There are several factual

aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. First

Information Report is not an encyclopedia. Investigating Officer will

conduct investigation into the said several factual aspects. Pending of the

civil suit is different to the allegations made against the petitioners

herein. With the said submissions they sought to dismiss both the

Criminal Petitions.

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

11. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing

Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the

matters, Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and

Mr. Pappu Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.

Anirudh Sadhu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 made their

submissions extensively.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

12. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that 2nd

respondent is claiming that he has land in Sy.Nos.32, 35, 36 and 38

admeasuring Ac.20.20 guntas situated at Erlapally Village. He has

constructed a Function Hall in the name of his father and in possession

of the said property. In the year 2023, owner of abutting land i.e. 1st

petitioner herein, a sitting MLA and his wife trespassed into the said land

and grabbed the same. They have also demolished the structure. When

2nd respondent and his family members went there to enquire about the

said demolition and illegal acts, the security person belongs to

Maharashtra State i.e. A.4 in Crl.P.No.5708 of 2024 along with the Bihar

and Punjab gangs obstructed the 2nd respondent and his family members,

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

threatened to kill them with deadly weapons. Petitioners cheated the 2nd

respondent and his family members.

13. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the 2nd respondent

has filed a suit vide O.S.No.64 of 2019 against the petitioners Nos.1 to 3

for cancellation of sale deeds and for consequential relief of perpetual

injunction. The said suit is pending. 2nd respondent's son also filed a suit

vide O.S.No.324 of 2023 against the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 for perpetual

injunction. The said suit is also pending. He has also filed another suit

vide O.S.No.1227 of 2022 against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and his father

seeking for cancellation of sale deeds as null and void and for perpetual

injunction. The said suit is also pending. Respondent No.2 has filed a

suit vide O.S.No.364 of 2023 against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 for

perpetual injunction and the said suit is also pending. Thus, there are

disputes between the petitioners and 2nd respondent and his son with

regard to the said property.

14. In both the complaints, 2nd respondent has specifically alleged

that the petitioners threatened 2nd respondent and his family members

with dire consequences with deadly weapons. They tried to grab the

property. 2nd respondent has specifically mentioned all the aforesaid facts

including the date, time, mobile number etc., in the complaint.

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

15. Perusal of the MOU and agreements entered by and between

the petitioners and 2nd respondent and his son would reveal that there are

many blanks and transactions are cash transactions. 2nd respondent has

specifically made allegation that the petitioners demolished function hall

and entered into the subject property criminally. Thus, there are the

following factual aspects to be investigated into:-

i) Transactions between the petitioners and 2nd respondent, his son

and family members.

ii) Incident with regard to 20.05.2024.

iii) Cash transactions between the petitioners and 2nd respondent and

his family members.

iv) Petitioner No.1 threatened respondent No.2 to settle the disputes.

v) The petitioners also threatened respondent No.2 with dire

consequences.

vi) There are several other aspects.

16. It is relevant to extract Sections 441, 447, 427, 340, 383, 386,

420 503 and 506 of IPC.

i. Section 441 IPC deals with criminal trespass and it says whoever

enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in

possession of such property, Or having lawfully entered into or

upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby

to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to

commit an offence or having lawfully entered into or upon such

property, remains there with the intention of taking unauthorized

possession or making unauthorized use of such property and fails

to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when

called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing,

duly served on him, amounts to criminal trespass.

ii. Section 447 of IPC deals with punishment for criminal trespass.

iii. Section 427 IPC deals with mischief causing damage to the

amount of fifty rupees and it says whoever commits mischief and

thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or

upwards.

iv. Section 340 IPC deals with wrongful confinement and it says

whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to

prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain

circumscribing limits, is said wrongfully to confine that person.

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

v. Section 383 IPC deals with extortion and it says whoever

intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person,

or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put

in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security

or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a

valuable security, commits extortion.

vi. Section 386 IPC deals with extortion by putting a person in fear of

death or grievous hurt and it says whoever commits extortion by

putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that

person or to any other.

vii. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing

delivery of property and it says whoever cheats and thereby

dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to

any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a

valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and

which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall

be punished with imprisonment.

viii. Section 503 IPC deals with criminal intimidation and it says

whoever threatens another with any injury to his person,

reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that

person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not

legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is

legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of

such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

ix. Section 506 IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation

and it says whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation.

17. As discussed supra, the contents of both the complaints prima

facie, constitutes, the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer in

both the crimes, recorded the statements of 2nd respondent, his son, wife

and Mr. Tyagura Srinivas Reddy, Manager of 2nd respondent, Koppula

Venkatesh and Md. Arif Khan, residents of 2nd respondent village. The

Investigating Officer has also addressed a letter to MRO seeking

information with regard to ownership of the aforesaid land. The

Investigation is pending in both the crimes.

18. As discussed supra, there are several factual aspects which the

Investigating Officer, has to consider during the course of investigation.

The transactions between the petitioners and 2nd respondent and his son

are cash transaction. According to the RBI guidelines related to

Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2002,

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

specifically Section - 269ST of the Income Tax Act, any cash

withdrawal exceeding Rs.2.00 lakhs should be done through an online

transaction. In view of the same, it is clear that any transaction over and

above Rs.2.00 Lakhs in cash is impermissible. There are many blanks in

the agreements and MOU which needs to be investigated into by the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

19. As discussed supra, prima facie, there are specific allegations

against the petitioners herein that they have trespassed into the land

belongs to 2nd respondent and his family members criminally, tried to

grab the same, demolished the function hall, threatened them with dire

consequences with deadly weapons and they also tried to extort money

by entering into the aforesaid agreements and sale deeds. The petitioners

induced them by delivering the said property, and cheated them.

20. In both the complaints, 2nd respondent has specifically

narrated all the facts including the dates, time, mobile number,

inducement, dishonestly cheating etc. The aforesaid witnesses in one

voice stated in the same lines. The Investigating Officer has to collect

information from MRO. He has to conduct investigation on the aforesaid

aspects. Thus, prima facie, there are serious allegations against all the

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

petitioners herein. The role played by them is also mentioned in the

complaints and in the aforesaid statements of the witnesses.

21. It is settled law that in the rarest of the rare cases, this Court

can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC, to quash the

proceedings in the First Information Report. The said principle was also

laid down under law.

22. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the

various judgments rendered by it categorically held that the High Courts

in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to

quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

23. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 5, the Apex Court has

also laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of power of

this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

. AIR 2021 SC 931,

. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list 15 of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

24. In Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand6, the Apex Court

held as follows:-

15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused.

As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has

. (2024) 10 SCC 527

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.

17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR (2024) 10 SCC 527 discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed.

18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the court, the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.

19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused."

25. As discussed supra, in the present case, the allegations

levelled against the petitioners herein are serious and prima facie, the

same constitutes the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners

herein. However, on completion of investigation, it is for the

Investigating Officer, to file final report in terms of Section 173 CrPC.

He may delete or add any name, drop or add any offence on

consideration of the evidence collected during the course of

investigation. Scuttling the investigation at the threshold is

impermissible.

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.5708 & 5709 of 2024

26. The aforesaid cases are not the rarest of rare cases to exercise

powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid