Telangana High Court
Chitti Hari Babu vs The State Of Telangana on 17 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6325 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed praying to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR.No.88 of
2025 before the Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad
District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
329(3), 126(2), 351(2) and 79 of BNS.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the
respondent No.2 owns a plot near Malakpet Mutton Market
with a 15-foot-wide road on the western side, which was
previously disputed with petitioner, and a Court judgment
ruled in favor of the 2nd respondent. On February 22, 2025,
at around 15:35 hours, the 2nd respondent started
construction work pursuant to the Court order. However, the
petitioner allegedly trespassed onto the land, stopped the
construction, threatened to kill the 2nd respondent and his
wife, and used abusive language. Based on the complaint, the
police issued an FIR against the petitioner in Crime No. 88 of
2025, and the case is currently pending investigation.
Aggrieved by implication in the case, this Criminal Petition is
filed.
3. Heard Sri K.Venkata Vara Prasad, learned counsel for
petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and
Sri KLN.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegations leveled by the 2nd respondent, against the
petitioner are false and baseless, with no iota of truth, and
denied all other allegations. He further submitted that the
mother of petitioner purchased a 300 sq. yard land in Old
Malakpet, Hyderabad, via sale deed dated September 22,
1978, and the petitioner and his father have been in
possession and enjoyment of the property since her death,
leasing it to M/s. Yasodha Hospital for car parking. He
asserted that a 15-foot road on the eastern side of the
property is used for easements, as reflected in the sale deed.
He contended that the 2nd respondent allegedly encroached
upon this land with others, raising illegal structures and
depriving the petitioner of easement rights, leading to filing of
civil suits and writ petitions. He further contended that the
1st respondent, influenced by the 2nd respondent and for
monetary benefits, refused to receive the complaints of
petitioner, dated August 29, 2024, and April 2, 2025, but
registered the complaint of 2nd respondent against the
petitioner. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioner is
innocent of the offences as alleged, he prayed this Court to
quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by
allowing this criminal petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the 2nd respondent and
the mother of petitioner had filed suits for perpetual
injunction against each other, with the suit filed by the 2nd
respondent being allowed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide common judgment
and decree dated July 3, 2024, in O.S.No.341 of 2014 and the
suit filed by petitioner vide O.S.No.1501 of 2013, was
dismissed. He contended that the petitioner trespassed into
the 2nd respondent's plot on February 22, 2025, threatened
him and his wife with dire consequences, and used filthy
language, despite knowing about the injunction order against
him, due to which the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint
before the P.S. Chaderghat, and the petitioner is alleged to be
a chronic litigant with a history of rowdy behavior. Therefore,
while advocating that the offences are serious, and a detailed
trial is necessary to determine the true facts, and keeping in
mind the instances and history of petitioner of filing
complaints and writ petitions, including W.P.No.13256 of
2025, which was countered by the 2nd respondent's
W.P.No.14241 of 2025, demonstrates an attempt to harass the
2nd respondent under the guise of a civil dispute, he prayed
this Court to dismiss this Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
the learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner is
the owner of the said property and he is having rights over the
said property, and it is the respondent No.2 who occupied the
property illegally and filed cases against the petitioner,
whereas, it is the specific stand of learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that both the parties filed suits and as
resultant, the right of respondent No.2 was confirmed and in
spite of same, the petitioner trespassed onto the land, stopped
the construction, threatened to kill the 2nd respondent and
his wife, and used abusive language.
7. On thoroughly perusing the record, it is noted that there
are specific set of allegations leveled against the petitioner
with regard to interfering into the property and threatening
the 2nd respondent and his wife. That being so, this Court is of
the firm view that at this stage, the proceedings initiated
against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed. There are
no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:17.09.2025
PT
