Solipuram Rami Reddy vs State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2392 Tel

Telangana High Court

Solipuram Rami Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 20 February, 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.831, 956, 959 and 963 of 2024

COMMON ORDER

1. These Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the petitioners

under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

(BNSS). Since the parties to all these four criminal revision cases are

common and the point to be decided is interconnected, this Court

disposes of the same by way of this common order.

(a) Criminal revision case No.831 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.134 of 2023 in C.C. No.3645 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

(b) Criminal revision case No.956 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order dated 29.012024 in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2023 in C.C. No.3428 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

(c) Criminal revision case No.959 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.128 of 2023 in C.C.No.145 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

(d) Initially criminal revision case No.963 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2023 in C.C.No.3654 of 2020 on

the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. Subsequently, the proceedings against the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 were quashed by this Court as per order dated 16.08.2022 in criminal petition No.6006 of 2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner not pressed the present revision against the 2nd respondent/2nd accused.

The above referred criminal miscellaneous petitions are filed under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. by the respective petitioners/accused in respective

cases seeking their discharge from the charges levelled against them.

The trial Court dismissed the said applications as per orders referred

above.

2. In all the above matters, this Court heard Sri C.Vikram Chandra,

learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Narender Naik, learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent/State.

3. The facts pertaining to all these criminal revision cases

are correlated with each other and for the sake of brevity, the

particulars are tabulated hereunder :

S. Crl.RC No. CC No. Crime No. Offences under Against No. of PS Sections Bachupally 1 831 of 2024 3645 of 2020 464 of 2020 452, 427 and 506 IPC A1 to A4 2 956 of 2024 3428 of 2020 464 of 2020 448, 427 and 506 IPC A1 to A3 3 959 of 2024 145 of 2021 515 of 2020 448, 427 r/w.34 IPC A1 to A3 4 963 of 2024 3654 of2020 458 of 2020 447 and 427 IPC A1 to A3

4. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheets laid by the

investigating officer, which lead to registration of the above four crimes,

succinctly, is that cases for the acts of house trespass, after preparation

for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, mischief causing damage with

criminal intimidation the present criminal cases have been registered

against the accused alleging that the villa and apartment owners, by

forming into association viz. Hill County Villa Owners Association

(HCVOA) and Hill County Apartment Owners Association (HCAOA)

represented by Uday Bhaskar-President, Ramesh Devarakonda-General

Secretary and Dr.Sunil circulated messages among the residents and

mobilized funds without any authority to open a medical centre inside

the club house which is a commercial space owned by M/s.Hill County

Properties Ltd., (HCPL) with a view to deprive of revenue of HCPL in-

spite of specific instructions to maintain as is condition and not to

create problems to each other.

(a) It is further alleged that on 31.07.2020 at about 11.00 hours,

S.Rami Reddy-President of HCVOA restrained HCPL staff in to the club

house and caused nuisance with a view to usurp the club land and

later S.Rami Reddy, Anumolul Srinivasa Rao, Rajender Reddy and other

residents objected the staff of HCPL and abused them in filthy language

and threated with direct consequences.

(b) It is also alleged that on 01.10.2020 at about 05.00 P.M. some of

the residents of Hill County viz. Sai Reddy, Ratna Gopal, Dr.Sunil and

Mallikharjun criminally trespassed into the club house, broken the

locks and threatened the security personnel with dire consequences,

abused them in filthy language and caused damage of club property.

(c) It is also alleged that on 02.10.2020 at about 16.00 hours, at

Club House, Hill County, Bachupally Village and Mandal, Medchal

District, the EC members and residents of Hill County Villa Owners

Association (HCVOA) and Hill County Apartment Owners Association

(HCAOA) numbering to about 100 persons criminally trespassed into

the Club House, created nuisance, hungama and forcefully evicted the

staff and security of M/s.Hill County Properties Ltd., (HCPL), Hyderabad

and occupied the club house. Further, the said mob prevented the staff

of HCPL from entering into the premises and gain entry to the assets,

machinery and equipment lying inside the club house.

5. Basing on the above allegations, the investigating officer

conducted investigation and upon examining the material witnesses

and relevant documents, has laid charge-sheets against the accused

alleging that they are liable to be prosecuted for the offences, as

tabulated supra, for their acts. The trial Court has taken cognizance of

the said offences and assigned calendar case numbers and after

completing the required procedural aspects, proceeded with further.

6. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, the above

referred criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed by the respective

petitioners/accused seeking their discharge mainly contending that

they did not commit any offence much less the alleged offence and that

they were falsely implicated in the present criminal cases without there

being any ingredients to attract the offences with which they have been

attributed and hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings against

them would cause irreparable loss and injury.

7. The said criminal miscellaneous petitions were vehemently

opposed by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the

Respondent/State mainly contending that the said applications are not

maintainable in law and that the matters required full-fledged trial

since the investigation revealed prima-facie material against the

accused.

8. The trial Court dismissed the said applications holding that there

is prima-facie case to proceed with trial against the accused as the

material facts would come on record only after full-fledged trial and that

there are no merits in the petitions to discharge the accused.

9. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, referred above, the

petitioners in all these criminal revision cases have knocked the doors

of this Court mainly contending that the orders of the trial Court are

contrary to the principles of settled law and facts; the trial Court failed

to consider the fact that though the complaint discloses that HCVOA

and HCAOA, EC members and residents about 100 persons trespassed

into the club house and created nuisance and forcefully evicted the staff

and security of HCPL and occupied the club house, the petitioners/

accused are only arrayed as accused without mentioning the names of

the remaining persons and even the charge-sheet also silent in this

regard; the complaint copy or the FIR are silent regarding the

representative of the complainant company; the trial Court without

giving cogent and convincing reason has erroneously held that the

grounds urged by the accused seeking their discharge are not on sound

lines; the accused are innocent persons and they have not committed

any acts attracting the offences alleged against them; civil dispute

regarding ownership of club house is pending adjudication before the

civil Court but the said issue has been given a criminal cloak; though

the recitals of complaint show that the matter is subjudice before the

NCLT, Mumbai, no piece of paper is filed along with complaint; there is

a delay in lodging the complaints; when the facilities are locked by the

HPCL and they kept the keys with them, there will not be any possibility

either for the petitioner or any others to occupy the same or to damage

the facilities; there is nothing in the charge-sheet regarding recovery of

damaged property by the investigating officer; omnibus and false

allegations are made against the petitioners; there is no prima-facie

material against the petitioners/accused to proceed with trial and the

investigation went on biassed manner having been instigated by the

complainant company and hence, the petitioners are liable to be

discharged from the impugned criminal proceedings.

10. In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioners in all

these matters relied upon the decisions rendered in Tarak Dash

Mukharjee and others Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1, Ram

Prakash Chadha Vs.The State of Uttar Pradesh 2, Ram Rattan and

others Vs.State of U.P. 3 and orders of Karnataka High Court in

Crl.P.No.9698 -of 2018 contended that while deciding the application

filed seeking discharge of the accused, the Court is bound to record

reasons and the result should be based on record and rival contentions

advanced on either side. He further contended that the accused cannot

be entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same set of facts

and allegations and the same cannot stand for legal scrutiny and it is

nothing but violative of right of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of

the Constitution of India.

11. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st

respondent/State and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/

complainant, who filed counters on behalf of 2nd respondent,

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731

2024 AIR Supreme Court 3540

1977 AIR Supreme Court 619

vehemently opposed the present criminal revision cases mainly

contending that the orders of the trial Court are based on material

available on record, decisions relied upon by the parties and upon

hearing both sides and with sound reasoning, hence, the said well-

reasoned orders cannot be interfered with. They further contended that

during investigation sufficient material has been collected by the

investigating officer to establish the complicity of the accused and

hence, without subjecting the said material to the trial and letting the

accused to face the trial, the accused cannot be declared as innocent at

this premature stage.

12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, while contending

above, relied upon the decisions rendered in Mitesh Kumar J.Sha

Vs.The State of Karnataka and others 4, State of Tamilnadu Vs.

R.Soundirarasu 5, Hazrat Deen Vs. State of U.P. 6 and State of

Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap 7 and contended that while

deciding a discharge petition the Court can sift and weigh the evidence,

but it shouldn't conduct a detailed examination or weigh the evidence

as if it were conducting a full trial and that if there are two possible

interpretations and one raises suspicion, but not grave suspicion, the

Court can discharge the accused. It is further contended that it is

Crl.A.No.1285 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9871 of 2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1150

2022 SCC OnLine SC 178

(2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 191

settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application

for discharge the Court must proceed on an assumption that the

material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true

and evaluate the said material in order to determine whether the facts

emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the

existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged.

13. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further contended

that although there is perhaps not even an iota of doubt that a singular

factual premise can give rise to a dispute which is both, of a civil as well

as criminal nature means, that a single factual premise can lead to a

dispute that is both civil and criminal in nature. In such cases, both

civil and criminal proceedings can be pursued independently of each

other. Criminal proceedings are not a shortcut to other remedies

available in law. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further

contended that the present criminal revision petitions are filed beyond

the limitation period and hence, they are not maintainable in the eye of

law. The scope of revision is very limited, the petitioners cannot expect

the High Court to conduct a mini-trial before the trial to be conducted

by the trial Court. The petitioners can prove their innocence during

trial by challenging the prosecution case. Since the petitioners are

identifiable out of the mob barged into the club house, they were

arrayed as accused and it is the duty of the petitioners to name out the

other co-conspirators. Complaint copy reveal the 2nd respondent as the

authorized signatory for the complainant company. It is further

contended that since the orders of the trial Court are made on sound

reasoning and giving due consideration to the material placed before,

the present criminal revision cases are liable to be dismissed.

14. This Court perused the material available on record including the

impugned orders of the trial Court and heard the rival contentions

advanced on ether side. The record goes to show that the 2nd

respondent along with others established Hill County Properties Limited

(HCPL), which is a real estate company and it being the developer of the

property, constructed club house and the petitioners/accused

purchased flats and villas in the said project and subsequently formed

into association along with other residents in the name of HCAOA and

the said association claimed right to use the club house and when they

were restricted, as per the allegations, they have criminally trespassed

into the club house and damaged the facilities.

15. The record further goes to show that there is a dispute in

existence regarding the usage of club house by the residents of the

villas and flats and their claiming right over the club house. The

statement of witnesses show that the project is a HUDA approved layout

and all the villa and flat owners have right to enjoy the amenities

therein like common areas, club, parking and commercial complexes

managed by the HCPL but they cannot claim right over the same. The

version of the petitioner/accused is that they were restrained from

entering into the club house by the staff of HCPL and the version of the

HCPL is that the petitioners along with others trespassed into the club

house by broking the locks and caused damage to the facilities in the

club house.

16. Contentions and rival contentions are advanced on both sides to

support their respective cases. Section 239 of Cr.P.C., enunciate that if,

upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it

under section 173 of Cr.P.C., and making such examination, if any, of

the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the

prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the

Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless,

he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

But in the cases on hand, the prosecution upon completion of

investigating laid charge-sheets alleging that the petitioners/accused

along with a group of people have committed criminal trespass, created

nuisance, hungama and forcefully evicted the staff and security of

M/s.Hill County Properties Ltd., (HCPL), Hyderabad and occupied the

club house. Further, the said mob prevented the staff of HCPL from

entering into the premises and gain entry to the assets, machinery and

equipment lying inside the club house. However the said allegations are

the subject matters of trial and without subjecting the same to the test

of trial, it cannot be decided in either way. There is nothing on record

to reject the charge-sheets at the threshold naming them as groundless.

17. The grounds urged through these criminal revision cases have no

force warranting interference of this Court. Pending civil proceedings

cannot shield the accused from facing the criminal trial. Civil and

criminal proceedings can run parallel and are not dependent upon each

other. There is no bar in registering different FIRs against the accused

for their distinct acts. The contentions advanced on either side are the

triable issues and they cannot be decided prematurely. Proposition of

law is very clear that review of a judgment is a serious step and

reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent

mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

18. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under

Section 397 Cr.P.C., is extremely limited and it should be exercised very

sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly

erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the

finding recorded by the trial Court is based on no evidence, or material

evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or

perversely by framing the charge. When the impugned orders are

perused, there is nothing on record to set aside the same since this

Court sees no apparent error warranting interference under the

revisional powers.

19. In view of the above discussed factual matrix, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the present criminal revision cases are liable to

be dismissed.

20. In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.831, 956, 959 and 963

of 2024 are dismissed.

21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending stand

dismissed.

________________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :20.02.2025 Abb