Sri. Bandhyala Thirupathi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 6427 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri. Bandhyala Thirupathi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7410, 7476 and 8989 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

Crl.P.Nos.7410 and 8989 of 2023 are filed seeking to quash

the proceedings in C.C.Nos.58 and 56 of 2021, on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jadcherla, wherein the petitioners

were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable

under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Crl.P.No.7476 of 2023 is filed

seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.313 of 2020, on the

file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jadcherla, wherein the

petitioner was arrayed as sole accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 447, 341, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. Hence, all

these cases are clubbed together and disposed by way of common

order.

2. Heard Ms.D.Harshitha, learned counsel, representing

Chandrasen Law Offices, appearing on behalf of petitioners,

Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.B.Venkat, learned

counsel, representing Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and they have

been falsely implicated in the present cases as accused. Even

according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the

charge sheet, the dispute pertains to agricultural land, and the said

allegations are purely civil in nature. The respondent No.2 has no

right or interest in respect of the subject property claimed in the

complaint, especially he is claiming rights basing upon revenue

entries only. She further submitted that aggrieved by the order

dated 30.12.2019, passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in

Revision Case No.D1/60/2018-File No.Rev/D1/RoR/Revn/0060/

2018, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed

W.P.No.4878 of 2020, and this Court disposed of the said writ

petition on 30.12.2019 by setting aside the order passed by the

revisional authority in Case No.D1/60/2018, leaving it open to the

parties to agitate their grievances before the competent Civil Court

by instituting a comprehensive suit for declaration.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have

filed O.S.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Mahaboobnagar, seeking partition and allotment of their respective

shares with metes and bounds, and the said suit is still pending

between the parties and in the said suit, the property claimed in

these criminal petitions was also included. Hence, continuation of

the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the

process of law. In support of her contentions, she relied upon the

Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Shivaswamy and

Others v. The State of Karnataka and Others 1.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted

that the petitioners, without having any manner of right, trespassed

into the lands of respondent No.2 and removed the khaddies and

caused financial losses and there are specific allegations levelled

against them in the complaint. He further submitted that the

Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of the

witnesses, filed a final report, and the learned Magistrate, has taken

cognizance for the alleged offences levelled against them. Whether

the petitioners have committed the said offences or not has to be

2022(3) Crimes 102(Karnt.)

revealed after a full-fledged trial before the trial Court. The

grounds raised by the petitioners are disputed facts only and the

same cannot be decided in the present petitions. Hence, the

petitions are liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that the petitioners have approached this Court

and filed W.P.No.4878 of 2020, aggrieved by the order dated

30.12.2019 passed by the Joint Collector in Revision Case

No.D1/60/2018-File No.Rev/D1/RoR/Revn/0060/2018, and the

consequential order dated 05.02.2020 in RoR/20-B/588/2017

passed by the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar

District, as well as the computerized and uploaded 1B Form (RoR)

dated 06.02.2020. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on

02.12.2024, by setting aside the order passed by the revisional

authority in Case No.D1/60/2018, dated 30.12.2019, leaving it

open to the parties to agitate their grievances before the competent

Civil Court by instituting a comprehensive suit for declaration and

further observed that the revenue authorities are not conferred with

the power to examine the rights of inter se parties when the dispute

relates to title. The record further reveals that the petitioners have

filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior

Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, seeking partition with metes and

bound, and allotment of respective shares. According to the learned

counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid said suit is still pending. In

the said suit, the property claimed by respondent No.2 in the

present criminal petitions has also been included and respondent

No.2 has been made as a party defendant.

7. The specific case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 is

claiming rights over the subject property based on revenue entries,

particularly the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the revenue

authorities in favour of respondent No.2, was set aside by this

Court in W.P.No.4878 of 2020, by order dated 02.12.2024, and the

same has become final. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a

share in the schedule property is the subject matter of the suit in

O.S.No.39 of 2019, and the same is still pending.

8. In Shivaswamy's case (supra), the High court of Karnataka

quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 143, 427, 447, 448

and 506 r/w 149 IPC, holding that the complaint filed after seven

months was a misuse of criminal law arising from a purely civil

property dispute. It further noted that earlier writ proceedings had

conclusively recognized the petitioners' lawful possession, and

since criminal trespass under Sections 441 and 447 IPC requires

the complainant to be in actual possession, the basic ingredients of

trespass and mischief were absent. Consequently, the dependent

allegations under Sections 448, 506, and 143 IPC also could not

survive, and continuation of the criminal case was held to be an

abuse of process.

9. In the case on the hand the dispute between the parties

pertains to title and possession and is already the subject of a

comprehensive civil suit in O.S.No.39 of 2019. When the very

question of ownership and possession is sub judice before the Civil

Court, allegations of trespass or related offences cannot stand.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered

view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in

C.C.Nos.58 of 2021, 313 of 2020, and 56 of 2021 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jadcherla, is clear abuse of the

process of law and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and

accordingly quashed.