Vasireddy Lakshmi Sivanarayana vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 431 Tel

Telangana High Court

Vasireddy Lakshmi Sivanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4469 of 2026

                         DATE: 07.04.2026

Between :

Vasireddy Lakshmi Sivanarayana and another.

                                 ....Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2

                                 AND

The State of Telangana and another
                                                      ....Respondents

                            :ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings

in Crime No.237 of 2026 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad

for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 115(2), 351(2), 189(2)

r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS').

2. Brief facts of the case:

On 22.03.2026 at 10.00 hours respondent No.2 lodged a

complaint stating that, he is the General manager & authorized

representative of Rithwik Projects Private Limited, and taking care of

the property since 2001, on behalf of Rithwik projects Private

Limited and other land owners such as Mr. C.M Ramesh, Mr. C.M

Rajesh, Smt. C.R Sridevi, Smt. C.R Prakruthi. On 22.03.2026 at

5:00 A.M some unknown mob reached the site and are trying to

enter into the subject mentioned premises by threatening their

security person and man handled him at H.No.8-2-269/1 & 8-2-

269/2, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, belonging to Mr. C.M

Ramesh, Mr. C.M Rajesh, Smt.C.R Sridevi, Smt. C.R Prakruthi and

M/s. Rithwik projects Private Limited, and causing nuisance. He

received the said information at 6:30 A.M. by way of a phone call

from their Security and Mr. K.N.V.Phanindra mentioning the above

incident and then he immediately rushed to the site location and on

enquiry found that Mr. Vasireddy Lakshmi Sivanarayana and

Vasireddy Nagakumar engaged Mr.Mayur along with namely 1)

Tananki Taraka ram S/o Narendra Nath, 2). S.K Shanker formed a

conspiracy with an illegal intention to encroach into the above said

premises for the purpose of wrongful claim that the land belongs to

them. He immediately informed Banjara hills police station and the

concerned team from police station approached the site location and

took situation into control. The above said persons have no right

and valid title in the above said property but still only with an

intention to grab the property, they made an attempt along with a

mob and prepared everything such as concrete mixture, crane,

container and iron weapons. Therefore, he prayed to take necessary

action against the said persons.

3. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel,

representing M/s. Joshi and Chillara Legal Associates LLP

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned

Senior Counsel, representing Mr. P.Vamshi Krishna, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have

not committed the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated

in this crime. Even according to the allegations made in the

complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 329(3),

324(4), 115(2), 351(2), 189(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS are not attracted

and the allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in

nature, especially the petitioners have filed suit in O.S.No.97 of

2026 before the XIV Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for

grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein

from interfering with the suit schedule property, wherein the trial

Court in I.A.No.413 of 2026 granted ad interim injunction on

05.03.2026 restraining the respondents/defendants therein from

interfering with the petition schedule property and the said order is

continuing. The de-facto complainant filed the complaint on

22.03.2026, without having any manner of right, interest over the

subject property, on behalf of M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited.

He further submitted that the petitioners have purchased the

property through registered document dated 10.05.2006 from its

rightful owner by paying valuable sale consideration and since then

they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property

and therefore, the question of encroachment upon the property as

alleged in the complaint does not arise.

4.2 He further submitted that there are civil disputes pending

between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and the petitioners

filed W.P.No.21572 of 2015 questioning the action of respondent

No.2/District Collector, Nampally, Hyderabad, proposing to conduct

survey for localization in respect of the very same property and the

said writ petition is pending, wherein the petitioners have filed

W.P.M.P.No.32202 of 2015 for seeking permission to implead the

proposed respondent Nos.4 to 47 as party respondents and the said

application was allowed on 10.03.2026.

4.3 He further submitted that the Government filed LGC No.167

of 1999 before the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land

Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, claiming the subject

property alleged in the complaint and the said LGC was dismissed

on 02.03.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed

W.P.No.15174 of 2005 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh and the same was dismissed on 26.11.2010 holding that

the subject land in LGC is not a Government land and the said

judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C)

No.27316 of 2011 on 23.09.2011 and the said order has become

final. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by giving it a

criminal colour to settle the civil disputes pending before the

competent Civil Court. Hence, continuation of the proceedings

against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.4 He further submitted that the offences levelled against the

petitioners are punishable with imprisonment below seven years.

The Investigating Officer without following the mandatory procedure

as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS/41-A of Cr.P.C.

and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh

Kumar vs. State of Bihar 1, proceeding further with the

investigation and the same is contrary to law.

5. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent No.2:

5.1 Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2, being a General

Manager and authorized representative of M/s Ruthwik Projects

Private Limited, filed complaint against the petitioners on

22.03.2026. In the said complaint, it is specifically mentioned that

(2014) 8 SCC 273

house bearing Nos.8-2-269/1 and 8-2-269/2, Road No.2, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad, belong to Mr.C.M.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rajesh,

Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects

Private Limited/respondent No.2 and that on 22.03.2026, in the

early hours the petitioners along with others with a conspiracy and

without having any manner of right and title over the property are

trying to enter into the above said property and threatened their

security persons and manhandled them and caused nuisance with

an intention to encroach the subject property. The above said

allegations are specifically attracts the ingredients of offences

levelled against the petitioners.

5.2 He further submitted that the petitioners are claiming rights

over the property basing upon the Agreement of Sale-cum-General

Power of Attorney and the said document does not confer any title

over the subject property. The petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.97 of

2026 without impleading Mr.C.M.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rajesh,

Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects

Private Limited, as party defendants and obtained ad interim

injunction order behind their back and basing on the said ex-parte

ad interim injunction order, they are trying to encroach upon the

subject property. Similarly, the petitioners without impleading

Mr.C.M.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rajesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi, Smt.

C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, owners of

the property, as party respondents filed the writ petition.

5.3 He also submitted that the petitioners claiming rights from

their vendors from M/s. Anand Prabath Co-op. Housing Society

Limited and the said Society had purchased 21 plots out of 49 plots

in the layout and the petitioners have purchased plot bearing No.29

and 30 from the said Society. In LGC No.167 of 1999, the said

Society claimed Ac.20-00, whereas on the ground an extent of Ac.7-

29 guntas equivalent to 31248 square meters of the land is only

available. The property claimed by the petitioners is no more in

existence and based on the judgment in LGC, Writ Petition and

SLP(C), the petitioners are not entitled to claim any property,

especially they are not the parties in the said proceedings. Basing

on the pendency of the civil suits and the writ petition, the

petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings and

the same is nothing to do with the present criminal petition,

especially there are specific allegations levelled against the

petitioners, and the real truth will come out during the course of

investigation. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for

quashing of the FIR at the threshold.

5.4 He further submitted respondent No.2 is not having any

objection if the Investigating Officer follows the procedure as

contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS/41-A of Cr.P.C. and

the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh (supra).

6. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

6.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are

specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. The said

allegations attract cognizable offences and require investigation.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing the

proceedings at the threshold.

Analysis:

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that respondent No.2, who is General Manager and

authorized representative of M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited,

filed complaint on 22.03.2026, wherein it is specifically stated that

Mr.C.M.Ramesh, Mr.C.M.Rajesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi,

Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, are

owners of the subject property. On 22.03.2026 at 5.00 A.M. the

petitioners along with others without having any manner of right

are trying to enter upon the subject property and caused nuisance.

The petitioners along with one Mr.Mayur, Mr.Tananki Tarakaram,

Mr.S.K.Shanker, formed a conspiracy illegally to encroach upon the

subject property for the purpose of claiming the land, as it belong to

them. Whereas the petitioners are claiming rights over the subject

property through Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney

dated 10.05.2006.

8. The record reveals that the petitioners have filed suit in O.S.

No.97 of 2026 for grant of perpetual injunction against M/s. Anand

Prabath Cooperative Housing Society Limited and R.R.Pasura

Constructions LLP, restraining them from interfering with the suit

schedule property. Along with the said suit, the petitioners have

filed I.A. No.413 of 2026 for grant of ad interim injunction and the

trial court had granted ad interim injunction on 05.03.2026

restraining the respondents/defendants therein from interfering

with the petition schedule property. In the said suit, neither the de-

facto complainant nor Mr.C.M.Rajesh, Smt.C.R.Sridevi,

Smt.C.R.Prakruthi and M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Limited were

made as party defendants.

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

under the guise of ad interim injunction are trying to occupy the

subject property without having any manner of right, especially the

property claimed by the petitioners is not in existence and the

identification of property of the petitioners is also in dispute, are

concerned, this court is not inclined to deal with the said issues in

the present criminal petition, especially the petitioners have filed

suit in O.S NO. 97 of 2026 and the same is pending.

10. The scope of the present criminal petition is very limited.

Whether the petitioners are tried to enter upon the subject property,

as mentioned in the complaint illegally with an intention to

encroach the same or not and thereafter the security persons

manhandled and caused nuisance and the said allegations are true

or not, has to be revealed during the course of investigation,

especially the investigation is at the threshold. The allegations

levelled in the complaint discloses prima facie commission of

cognizable offences and the grounds raised by the petitioners are

disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined and

adjudicated in a proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

11. In A.M. Mohan v. State represented by SHO and another 2,

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the various

judgments including the principle laid down in G. Sagar Suri and

another v. State of U.P. and others 3, held that criminal

proceedings cannot be permitted to continue where the dispute is

predominantly civil in nature and the criminal law is invoked only to

exert pressure or settle civil scores. The Court observed that mere

breach of contractual obligations or disputes arising out of

(2024) 12 Supreme Court Cases 181

(2000) 2 SCC 636

commercial or property transactions do not, by themselves,

constitute criminal offences unless the essential ingredients of the

alleged penal provisions are clearly made out. It was further held

that giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute amounts to

abuse of the process of law, and in such cases, the High Court is

justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in order to secure the ends of

justice and prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.

12. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioners in A.M. Mohan (supra) is not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case, as the allegations are not

confined to a civil dispute. In the complaint, it is specifically alleges

criminal trespass, illegal intention to encroach into the subject

property mentioned in the complaint for the purpose of claiming the

subject property as belongs to them. The said allegations, if taken

at face value, prima facie disclose cognizable offences.

13. In Mohammad M. Khalid, Hyderabad and two others v.

Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another (Crl.P.No.6378 of

2015, dated 18.11.2025), this Court at paragraph No.10, held as

follows:

"It is relevant to mention that in K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. 5 and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal 6, to reiterate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or financial transactions, and such a "civil profile" does not strip the act of its "criminal outfit."

Similarly in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka7, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the same principle, stating that civil and criminal proceedings may, in law, proceed simultaneously, a criminal prosecution can be sustained only where there is a clear presence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction."

14. The principle laid down in Mohammad M. Khalid supra

squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The complaint

contains specific allegations of criminal trespass, and is not

confined to a mere civil dispute between the parties. The allegations

disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences, and the

(2020) 14 SCC 552

(2002) 1 SCC 555

(1999) 8 SCC 686

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575

issues raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact,

the proceedings in a criminal case cannot be quashed at the crime

stage while exercising the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of

the BNSS.

15. It is relevant to mention that in Neeharika Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 8, the power to quash an F.I.R. is

to be exercised sparingly and only in rare and exceptional cases,

since F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia.

16. In so far as the other contention raised by the learned Senior

Counsel that the offences levelled against the petitioners are

punishable with imprisonment below seven years and the

Investigating Officer without following the mandatory procedure

prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the guidelines issued

by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 9, is

proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law, is

concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 fairly submitted that he has no objection to issue

necessary direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the

procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the

guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

(2021) 19 SCC 401 9(2014) 8 SCC 273

17. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions,

this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not

fall under rarest of rare cases to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners at this stage. However, taking into consideration the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the offences

levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment

below seven years, the Investigating officer is directed to follow the

due procedure prescribed under the provisions of the BNSS, and the

guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). It is

needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to put forth

their grievances before the Investigating officer after receiving the

notice under section 35(3) of BNSS by raising all the pleas which are

available to them and they are also entitled to produce the

documents which are in their possession.

18. The criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 07.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. in three (3) days.

B/o pgp