Telangana High Court
Akki Mahesh Goud vs State Of Telangana on 11 June, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6208 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused
No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in
S.C.No.212 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act) at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy
District.
02. Heard M/s.Srinivas Pendota, learned counsel for
the petitioner-accused No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. There is no
representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.
03. The case of the prosecution as per defacto
complainant in brief was that the accused approached the
respondent No.2-complainant and demanded her to sell the
house property to them at cheaper rate and when the
complainant denied to sell the said house property, the
accused developed grudge against the complainant and
hatched out a plan to grab the house of the complainant by
illegal means. On 11.03.2022, the accused tried to occupy
the house of the complainant and she resisted the attempts
of the accused. On 12.03.2022, the accused A1 and A2
came to the house property of the complainant along with 10
to 15 persons, created panic, scolded the complainant in
filthy language by using un-parliamentary language, pelted
stones on the complainant and threatened the complainant
with dire consequences. The complainant approached the
police, but as no action was initiated by them, filed a private
complaint which was referred to the police and registered as
crime No.580 of 2022 for the offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 384, 389, 427, 447, 452, 504,
506, 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC') and sections 3 and 10(i) (3) of the SC, ST (Prevention
of Atrocities (for short 'POA"), Act.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 submitted
that the petitioner was innocent of the above allegations. He
had nothing to do with the said allegations made against him.
The petitioner purchased the property five years prior to the
respondent No.2-complainant and an injunction order was in
their favour. The respondent No.2 was trying to convert a
civil dispute into a criminal dispute, which was an abuse of
process of law. The complainant having suffered a decree in
O.S.No.1610 of 2003 passed by the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and after filing
Execution proceedings against the Judgment Debtor,
wherein the complainant was also added as a party JDR in
the said EP tried to interfere with the property of the
petitioners. The petitioners resisted the complainant. She
lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the police
registered the same without even making a preliminary
enquiry into the matter and relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v.
Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others 1, wherein it was held that a
criminal proceeding which was manifestly attempted with a
malafide intention or instituted with a malicious intention for
wrecking vengeance against the accused was not
maintainable.
05. He further submitted that the complainant was in the
habit of lodging false complaints against the accused. She also
lodged a complaint, which was registered as case No.29-ACP-
VPRM/RCKD/2018-19, dated 07.09.2019, which was pending
AIR 1992 SC 604
adjudication. She was misusing the SC & ST (POA) Act, 2015
and making the said Act as a tool to harass the petitioner. He
further submitted that the case against petitioner-A1 is quashed
by this Court and the petitioner-A2 also stand on the same footing
and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A2 in
S.C.No.212 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act) at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy
District.
06. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
complainant contended that the petitioner and others being
realtors doing real estate business, used to purchase the
plots, flats, houses and lands at cheap rates. They
approached the respondent No.2 and demanded to sell her
house to them. When the respondent No.2 denied the same,
they developed grudge against the respondent No.2 and
hatched a plan to grab her house and accordingly
trespassed into her house, abused her in the name of caste
and created a panic situation. The suit in O.S.No.1610 of
2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District was not applicable to the respondent No.2, as
the respondent No.2 was not a party to the said proceedings.
The EP was also not applicable against respondent No.2 as
she was not a party to the said suit. Pendency of a civil suit
was not a ground to quash the criminal case against the
petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State
also supported the contentions of learned counsel for the
respondent No.2-complainant and contended that the
petition could not be quashed at this stage.
08. As seen from the record, both the petitioner-A2
and the respondent No.2-complainant were alleging that they
were the absolute owners and possessors in respect of Plot
No.20 admeasuring 267 square yards in Survey No.4
situated at Dawood Khan Guda village, Balapur Revenue
Mandal (Old Saroornagar), Ranga Reddy District under
Badangpet Nagara Panchayat. The petitioner was alleging
that he purchased the said property from his vendors Smt.
F.K.Uma Bai and others, who were legal heirs of late
Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna through registered sale
agreement cum General Power of Attorney with possession
vide document No.16156 of 2012 dated 14.12.2012 in the
office of the Sub-Registrar, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District
for a valuable sale consideration.
09. As per petitioner, one R.Ail Reddy, S/o Muthyam
Reddy was the GPA holder of vendor Rallagudem Ram
Reddy, S/o Chenna Reddy and after the purchaser
Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna died intestate on 08.05.2009, his
widow and children, i.e. the vendors of the petitioner had
succeeded to the estate and they in turn sold the property to
them under a valid document and they were in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same. When the said GPA
holder R.Ail Reddy tried to interfere with the possession of
Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna, the latter instituted a civil suit in
O.S.No.1610 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,
East and North, Ranga Reddy District, Saroornagar seeking
for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed as
prayed for in the year 2008 and the same was still in force.
Having failed in the legal battle, R.Ail Reddy taking
advantage of the GPA in his favour, alienated the same
property to one Smt.Kalavathi and she in turn sold to Rafiq
Rahman, who in collusion with R.Ail Reddy sold to
Pochamma and who in turn sold to Karuna and subsequently
the said Karuna sold to Smt.R.Sujatha (the respondent No.2
herein) and her husband M.Shankar Naik, got executed the
sale deed registered as document No.13321 of 2017 dated
13.11.2017 (chain link transactions).
10. As per the contention of the petitioner, the
respondent No.2 was trying to stake claim in and over the
property and was adopting illegal methods including
threatening and coercing him and the co-owner A.Mahesh
Goud. It was further contended that on 12.01.2018 at 10.00
AM, the respondent No.2 trespassed into their property and
threatened the petitioners, due to which they lodged a report
before SHO, Meerpet, but the same was closed by the police
as civil in nature. But the police registered a case vide Crime
No.29 of 2019 for the offences under sections 447, 427 and
506 of IPC on the report given by the respondent No.2 under
the influence of Assistant Commissioner of Police,
L.B.Nagar.
11. The petitioner was contending that they were in
possession of the property for more than two decades and that
they were also protected by an order of injunction granted by a
competent civil court in the year 2003, which was still in
operation. Their contention was that they constructed two rooms
in the property and also engaged a watchman who was residing
in the said property. The respondent No.2-complainant was
making an attempt to throw out the said watchman and to occupy
the said property under the guise of threat of an action under SC-
ST Act.
12. As seen from the complaint, the complainant
purchased the said property from A.Karuna vide registered
sale deed document No.13321 of 2017 on 13.11.2017 and
she was in possession of the said property since then and
she constructed a house vide Door No.29-1-20, Badangpet,
RMR colony by obtaining permission from the concerned
Municipal Authorities and her name was incorporated in the
municipal records.
13. Thus, the dispute appears to be civil in nature.
From the material on record, it appears that a civil dispute is
converted into a criminal dispute and the provisions of the
SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are also
incorporated. It was also contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the complainant filed O.S.No.635 of
2022 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar seeking perpetual
injunction against the petitioners. But, she failed to state
about the allegations made in the criminal complaint in the
said suit. As the initiation of the criminal proceedings for the
offences under section SC & ST (POA) Act is nothing but an
abuse of process of law and the respondent No.2-
complainant had converted a civil dispute into criminal
proceedings, the same deserves to be quashed.
14. This Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in S.C.No.212
of 2025 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act) at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District, are hereby
quashed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 11.06.2025
BV
