Telangana High Court
Vajjala Ramesh Babu vs The State Of Telangana on 23 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4545 OF 2025
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.926 of 2024 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sirpur-T, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 324(5), 329(3), 292 read
with 3(5) of BNS.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2024 the de
facto complainant, lodged a complaint before the Police against
the petitioners stating that on 08.03.2024, she had taken 3 acres
of agricultural land on lease in Survey No.275, situated on the
outskirts of Sirpur-T village, from one Boddu Thirupathi, S/o
Bapu, aged 41 years, of Rebbena village. She paid a lease amount
of Rs.15,000 per acre, totaling Rs.45,000, and has been
cultivating cotton on the said land during the current season.
On 15.07.2024 at about 0800 hours, three individuals, namely
Vajjala Ramesh Babu, Revuri Narayan Reddy, and Revuri Ashok,
all residents of Sirpur-T village, illegally trespassed onto the
leased land. They ploughed the land using a tractor and
cultivator, causing damage to the cotton crop cultivated over 3
SKS,J
acres, resulting in a financial loss of approximately Rs.1,50,000
to the complainant. They also allegedly abused her in filthy
language. The complainant approached village elders seeking a
panchayat to resolve the issue and claim compensation, but the
accused persons did not attend the panchayat nor paid any
compensation.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the case
in Crime No.118 of 2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 324(5), 329(3), 292 read with 3(5) of BNS and after
completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide
C.C.No.926 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class
at Sirpur-T. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present
criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.
4. Heard Ms. G.V.S.S.Sruthi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Pulla
Rao Yellanki, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are purely
civil in nature and have been given a criminal colour with a
SKS,J
malicious intent and that respondent No.2 lodged a false
complaint to implicate the petitioners, though she was well aware
that a civil suit in O.S.No.97 of 2023 was pending between the
parties, and an injunction order was granted in favour of the
petitioners vide I.A. No. 202 of 2023 dated 21-02-2024,
restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession
of the petitioners. He further submitted that despite the said
order, respondent No.2, with an intention to harass the
petitioners and as a counterblast to the pending civil litigation,
foisted a false case and filed a private complaint leading to
registration of FIR No.99 of 2024 dated 02-07-2024 and C.C.
No.820 of 2024 dated 08-10-2024 for alleged trespass, damage,
abuse, and threats.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
petitioners are in lawful possession of the subject land as per the
Tahsildar's report in Rc.No.A/281/2023 dated 28-07-2023, and
respondent No.2 has no right or title over the said property and
that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in
CRLP Nos.16379 and 16432 of 2014 dated 31.08.2023, which
followed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
SKS,J
in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam 1 ,
wherein it was held that when the dispute is essentially civil in
nature, giving it a criminal colour amounts to abuse of process of
law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that
though there is a civil dispute, it is not a ground to quash the
proceedings, as there are specific allegations against the
petitioners for the alleged offences which have to be adjudicated
by the trial Court. This Court cannot entertain a quash petition
where the allegations are vague and the proceedings are an
abuse of the process of law. However, in the present case, the
allegations are clear. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss
the criminal petition.
8. In light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that the case of the de facto complainant is that the
accused trespassed into his property, interfered with his peaceful
possession, and abused him in filthy language. On the other
hand, the contention of the petitioners is that they are the lawful
(1992) Supp (1) SCC 355
SKS,J
owners of the subject property and that they have already filed
O.S.No.97 of 2023 before the competent civil Court.
9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the
petitioners filed I.A.No.202 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC, and the trial Court, after
hearing both sides, granted an order of injunction restraining the
respondents therein from interfering with the suit schedule
property. The respondents therein also filed a counter in the said
I.A., and the trial Court, after due consideration, observed that
the Survey No.274/A/A, which is the subject matter of the civil
suit, is distinct and different from the property claimed by the
respondents. The trial Court further observed that the
documents filed by respondent No.2 did not pertain to the suit
schedule property. The suit schedule property before the trial
Court is comprised of Sy.No.274/A/A to an extent of Ac.1.34
guntas, Sy.No.274/A/AA to an extent of Ac.1.33 guntas, and
Sy.No.274/A/EE to an extent of Ac.1.33 guntas. In contrast, the
property in dispute in the present criminal proceedings is shown
as Sy.No.275, to an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas.
10. It is significant to note that the date of the alleged incident
is the same in both the civil and criminal cases, and the
SKS,J
petitioners have also filed a counter-case against the de facto
complainant. Since there are case and counter-case proceedings
pending, it is appropriate that both matters be adjudicated before
the competent Court on merits.
11. At this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot delve into the disputed
questions of fact or assess the veracity of rival claims. The issues
raised are to be determined by the trial Court upon full-fledged
trial. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in
the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 23.07.2025
SAI
