CRLP/7411/2024 of Bhupender Singh Vs The State of Telangana on 20 February 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.578 of 2022 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad in connection with F.l.R.No.106 of 2022 of Chilkalaguda P.S., Hyderabad registered for the offences under Sections 341, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

02. Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the p€'titioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State- respondent No.1 and Mr. Mohd. Omerullah Shareef, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record. 03i. Brief facts of the case are that there is a property dispute in respect of House No.11-2-443, admeasuring about 325 square yards, situated at Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad, which originally belonged to one Saadu Singh, the grandfather of the respondent No.2. While so, in the year 2014, the said Saadu Singh expired. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 along with her mother has been residing in the said house. On 13.07.2O?-1, the mother of the respondent No.2 executed a gift deed in lavour of the respondent No.2 in respect of the said house. On coming to know of the same, the other children/grandchildren filed a civil suit in O.S.No.174 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIX Senior Civil Judge, CCCA, Secunderiabad, seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed in favour of the respondent No.2, and the said suit is pending. ln the meernwhile, the respondent No.2 executed an agreement \- of sale in favour of one Mohd. Abdul Basher siddiqui. while so, on 02.02.2022 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly went to the house of the respondent No.2, threatened her and prevented her from entering into the house. Hence, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint seeking necessary action against the accused persons.

04. Learned counser for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offences. He would further submit that since the petitioners refused to give Noc for sale of the property, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint. He further submits that a civil dispute is pending between the parties in o.s.No. 174 of 2021 on the file of the learned XIX senior civil Judge, cccA, Secunderabad. He further contended that the respondent No.2 is attempting to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. The allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are essentially civil in nature. Therefore, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.

05. On the other hand' the learned counsel for the respondent No'2 as well as the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State-respondent No'1 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learrred trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proc,aedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matt,3r is to be decided afier conducting trial by the learned trial Coud and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition'

06. This Court has carefully considered the subntissions made by the learned counsel for either side and perursed the material available on record'

07. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case' it is 'elevant to refer Sections 341 and 506 of the IPC' which reads as under: with both. ":341. Punishment for wrongful restraint:- \A/hoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished i"liftitiirr. i.p"risohment for a teim which mav extend to one #i",i','#'wiin ine wnicn may extend to five hundred rupees' or

506. Punishment for ciminat intimidation: Whoever commits' f;; ;;;;;; "t ciminat intimidation shatt be punished with 'i,i.ri"""'iiJriif either desciption for a term.which .may extend ';;:;;;';;;;;,;1-iitn nr", or with both; tr threat be to cause ';r;;; l;;;;;frt huft, etc'- And ff the threat be to cause [|l'ii Zr";;;;;;" hutt, or to cause the destruction or anv ;';;;;; ;; i,;;,-., to cause an offence punishabte with death or imprisonment for life, or with impisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shalt be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

08. A plain reading of the aforesaid penal provisions makes it clear that, to attract their application, there must be specific and direct allegations attributable to the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 with regard to wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation. As seen from the record, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties revolves around house property bearing No.1 1-2-443, situated at Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad. lt is not in dispute that, questioning the gift deed executed in favour of the respondent No.2, a civir suit in O. S. No. 1 74 of 2021 is already pending on the file of the learned XIX Senior Civil Judge, CCCA, Secunderabad. Thus, the title and possessory rights of the partles are sub judice before the competent civil court. The main grievance of the respondent No.2 appears to be that, when the petitioners refused to give a No objection Certificate (NoC) for alienation of the property, and in view of the pending civir ritigation, the present complaint came to be lodged.

09. To constitute the offences alleged, the complaint must prima facie disclose the necessary ingredients attracting crimina liability for wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation. A perusal of the record discloses that there are no specific allegations or averments in the charge sheet demonstrating that ther petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 either wrongfully restrained the respondent No.2 or threatened her with intent to cause alarm in her mind. There are no descriptive particulars of the acts committed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. The charge sheet does not disclose any material indicating that the respondent No.2 was subjected to criminal intimidation so as to cause any real or reasonable apprehension of injury to her life, limb, or property.

10. ln order to substantiate the allegations in the charge sheet, the police have examined nine witnesses, out of whom two are shown as eye witnesses. However, surprisingly, the names of the said eye witnesses do not find place either in the complaint or in the FlR. lt is also an admitted fact that one of the alleged eye witnesses is actively involved in the above civil litigar:ion, therefore, he appears to be an interested -r witness. The names or roles of the said eye witnesses were absent even in the contents of the charge sheet, which is the ultimate outcome of the investigation. This omission goes to the root of the case and creates serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations. lt appears that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that criminal law has been set in motion to exert pressure on the petitioners in respect of the property dispute. ln the absence of specific allegations satisfying the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, the continuation of criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. Even lf the allegations contained in the charge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. The material collected during the course of investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, fails to disclose the commission of any offence so as to make out a case against them. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and2 would amount to a clear abuse of the process of raw and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

11 Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proo-'edings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in c.c.No.ti78 of 2022 on the file of the learned X Additional chief Metropol;tan Magistrate at secunderabad, in connection with F.l.R.No.106 of 2022 of chilkalaguda p.s., Hyderabad are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// sD/- T.sRirutvesa REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -r' (_? SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheXAdtlitionalChieffVletropolitanMagistrateatSecunderabad.

2. The static,n Horr" o*icer, c'rrilt<rigrJr"police Station, Hyderabad District'

3. Two CCs to tne FuUlic ProsecriJa-Uign Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl

4. One CC to Sri K Sudhakar Reddy' Advocate- [OPUC]

5. One CC to Sri M;hd Omerutlah Shareef' Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CD C:oPies GNK'PSL YY : i,t:

/ I ! HIGH CC}URT DATED: 20/0212026

ORDER

CRLP.No.741 1 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o"P&,