CRLP/6448/2025 of M/s. Daggubati Farms And Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana on 17 December 2025

ORDER:

Petitioner-company including petitioners claim to be the lawful owners and possessors of Acs. 4.25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 172/A and 281/A of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga RedclSr District, having purchased the same through four registered sale deeds from the true and lawful owners, and have been in continuous possession and enjoymEnt ever since, with its titte duly mutated in the revenue records in ZQOZ under the R.O.R. Act. Prior to purchase, I petitioners conducted idue diligence by obtaining legal opinion and issuing public notices, land having received no objections, clairn to be l bon.a fide purchasers f{r vahrabie consideration. Petitioner further rely on the GascILe notificatlon dated 03.03.20O5 issued under Section 4(1) I{YDERABN)

of the Land Acquisition Act, which itself acknowledges petitioners' title and possession, and on disposal of w.P. No. 10163 of 2oo5 directing acquisition only by due process of law. It is contended that Respondent No.2, who wers never in possession of the land, has subsequently filed CCSR No. 6587 of 2024 solely to harass and extort petitioners. According to petitioners, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not disclose any criminal offence, and continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, and therefore, prays to quash CC(SR).No.6Ii87 of 2024 on the file of learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpall;g, for the offences unrler Sections s22, 324(sl, s2g(4), 335, 336(3),339, (;L(21and section 3(5) of Bharariya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

lleard Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for Petitioners; Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No- 1; and M r. Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for Respondent No- 2.

3. Learned senior counsel for petitioners, relying on the principles letid down in state of Haryanto a. Bhean r,a.lt, contends that the prr:sent criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.c. (now section 528 BNSS). He submits that although registration of an FIR is mandatory in cases disclosing cognizable offences as held in r.a.lita Kumari a- ffotte of u.p.2, the dispute in the 'goez1 supp (t) scc 335 '(2014) 2 SCC I t' I

present case is purely civit in nature and criminal law is being misused to exert pressure on petitioners, which is impermissible, as held in Anukul singh o. state o!: u.P.s.It is argued that Respondent No'2 has failed to disclose the commission of any cognizabte offence or explain the inordinate delay in lodging the private complaint, clearly indicating mala frd"es, especially in view of the pending civil litigation' Further, the mandatory procedure prescribed, in Prigankc srirrustdua a' sto:te of u.F. was not followed, as no proof was produced to show that the complaint was first taken to higher police authorities when FIR was a[egedly not registered. It is also contended that Respondent No'2 had already availed a civil remedy against the very same set of allegations against the same persons, as such, she ought not to have maintained the private complaint as the element of criminality is absent, hence' the same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the learned Magistrate faited to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, contrary to the principles laid down in s.IV. Vilolgalollcshmi a. state of Ko;rnato;ka' wherein it was held as follows: "The obuious caueat being that the allegations, euen if lwuing a ciuil Jlauour to tlwm, must pima facie disclose on ouerutlrclming element of ciminalitg' In the absence of tle t elenrentofciminalitg,ifbothciuilandciminalcasesare. allotued to continue, it will deftnitetg amount to abuse of the process o.f the Courl, which the Courts houe alwags tied to preuent by putting a stop to ang such criminal proceeding' 'lcrl.Appeal No. 4250 ot2O25l 4(20r5) 6 scc 287

wlrcre ciuil proceedings haue arready been instituted with regard to the same issue, and. tle element of ciminalitg is absent. If such element is absent, the proseantion in question would haue to be quashed. In this corunection, paramjeet Batra u. State of lJttarakhand. (2013) 11 SCC 675 can be referred to: "72. Whether a complaint discloses a ciminat offence or not depends upon the nahtre of facts alleged. therein. wlrctluzr essential ingredients of crimhw! offence are present or not has to be judged by the High courl. A complaint disclosing ciuil transactions may also haue a ciminal terture. But the High court must see whether a clispute uhich is essentially of a ciuil nafire is giuen a cloak of criminal offence:- In such a situation, if a ciuil remedg is auailable and. is, in fact, adopted as has happcned" in this cclse, *rc High court:;hould not hesitate to qu-esh the criminal proceedings to preuent abuse of process of ttrc CoLttt.,'

vIr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Fublic prosecutor for respondent No.l-State contends that the complaint contains specific allegations a-ttracting the offences alleged against petitioners and, since petitioners trave already entered appearance and the matter is pending t. abjudication through a full-fledged trial, the present Criminal petition is not maintairrable and is tiable to be dismissed

5. Mr- Ashfaq Ahmed, rearned counser for Respondent No.2 contends ttLat respondent No.2 is the law-ful owner of . the subject propert5i under a clear and unbroken chain of title originating frorn ) regtst{:d plot sales made pursuant to an approired Gram panchayat \6 I

layout during 1987-1989, leaving no land available for petitioners' alleged vendors to sell in 2OO1, and that petitioners and others, in collusion with police officials, fabricated documents to illegally usurp the property of poor plot owners. He alleges that on 30.1O.2O21, petitioners, with police protection, forcibly entered the existing residential colony using heavy machinery and demotished houses and temples, rendering several families homeless, thereby committing cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Respondent No.2 asserts that revenue entries do not confer title, denies petitioners' claim of purchase, and contends that criminal complaint was filed only after the police failed to act on his complaint despite documentary proof. According to him, the criminal proceedings are bona fide, disclose serious offences, and the juclgments relied upon by petitioners do not apply, therefore, the Criminal Petition deserves to be dismissed. Respondent No.2 relies on S.il. Vtjayalakshmd v. State of Kantatakas; Kathgoglni a- Sidharath P.S.ReddgF; Prlti Saraf o. Sfrrrte of IffT Delhl7; K. Jagoidish v. tldago Kumor G.S8; Sa;u Kama;l Shillufi Pokqrekar u. State oJ Karnatakae; Chelako;marttht Venkqtesutarlu o. State of Andhra. Prad.eshlo.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, the case of petitioners, precisely, is that they are the lawful ' 2ozi LrvE LAw (sc) 7s8 u 2ozs r.rvo r.Aw (sc) 712 'LL2o2t (scl 154 *Crl.A.No.56 of 2O2o clarecl lo.1.2o2o 'crl.A.No.255 of 2o t9 datcd 12.2.2ot9 'ocrt.A.No. ro}92 ot 2or9 dated 3t.z.2ot9

owners and possessors of the subject land, having purchased it through registered salt: deeds and secured mutation in revenue records, and also in continuouri possession for over t\f,'o decades; and that the dispute raised by Respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature, therefore, the criminal com'claint has been filed with mala fide inLent, to harass and extort money, and even if the allegations are taken at face value, no criminal offence is made out, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

7. ()n the other hand, the case of Respondent No.2, precisely, is that she tras clear and prior title to the property through registered plot sales m:tde pursuant to a Gram Pancha__vat-approved layout during 1987-1989. He denies petitioncrs' title ancl allegcs that petitioners and others fabricated documents to usurp the land of poor plot owners; and that the revenue entries being clelimcd b_y petitioners do not confer title on them, arrd that no land remained u,ith the original owners of the plots, to be sold to petitioners, and therefore, petitioners fabricated the documents. Respondent No.2 further alleges that petitioners have forcibly entered and demolished the houses ancl temples, and the police also colluded with petitioners on 30.1O.2O21, therefore, the crirninal eomplaint was bona flde, as the complaint ',r'as made after police inaction and that the: offences alleged require a criminal trial.

8. In vieu, of the background of respective c:ases, the contention \ of learnet Senior counsel for petitioners iby rel_ying on Va;nkinc Clumilndesuarc:nath a. TIz.e S.ILO., Nagaramltalem I&,O p.S.,

( Guntuflll that though *lt ls not mandatory that every report shdl be given to the police at the lirst instance and thereafter only they have to approach the Court by way of a private complaint, however, the 2no respondent approaching the Court at the first instance and Iiling a private complaint without approaching the police shows that the complainant had approached the Court with a mala tide intention, is seriously countered by Respondent No.2 contending that Respondent No.2 first approached Gachibowli Police regarding the incident dated 30.1O.2021, that police refused to entertain the complaint and threatened her, and that she thereafter, approached higher police officials including the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, however her efforts did not yield result, and it is only thereafter, Respondent No.2 approached ttrc trial Court. [n view of the specilic rebuttal contention of Respondent N<1.2 asserting the reasons for her approaching the trial Court, the contention of learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanced.

9. Further, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 made specific allegationi against petitioners that they have fabricated the documents of the subject property, forcibLy entered and demolished the houses and te'mples and the police also colluded on 3O.1O.2O21. It is also contencled, these allegations even taken on the face value constitute the offences alleged against petitioners. ,\ {f "12ort) r AI.D (cri) t lO. It is relevant to note,-at this juncture, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR, or a C.C., can be exercised t:o prevent abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or 1:o carry out the orders passed under the code. Further, the Honble Supreme court in slcoda Auto volksulagen rndla Prtuate Ltmtted. o. The Sto;te of Uttar Pradeshr2, categoricatly held that the High court has to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 cr.P.c. in rarest of rare cases and the saicl porver has to be exercised spa.ringly and with circumspcction.

11. lrt this stage, learned Senior Counsel seeks permission to raise all the contentions available to petitioners as per law, before the trial Court. Considering the submission rnade, this Court grants liberty to petitionen; to raise all the contentions avzrilable tri tlicm as per law, before the trial Court. t2. r\ccordingly, the Criminal Petition is closecl lVliscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed t*(t-o-) lo scclsl SD/. A. JAYASREE STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER -)

13.

1. I!t" X Mr-"tropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.

2. The Xth,AdditionalJuOiciat Magistrate of F Kukatpally irst Cla Ranga Reddy District at

3. The station House officer, Gachibowri potice station, R.R. District

4. Two ccs; to the public prosecutor, High court r* tn" State of retangana at Hyderab:rd.[OUT]

5. One CC to Sri p. Sri Ram, Advocate tOpUCl

6. One CC to SriAshfaq Ahmed, Advocate tOpUCI

7. Two CD Copies VH/BA *w

HIGH COURT DATED: 1V11212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.648 ol2O2S CLOSING THE CRIMINAt. PETITION t 1$ t-tg '1ty,,,, PATC 3IHE .S o Y ) (J:. u * Ir<s @L- sf!ze |/ /.. !