CRLP/6312/2025 of M/s. Daggubati Farms And Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana on 17 December 2025

ORDER:

be a bona ftde purchaser for valuable consideration. Petitioner further relies on the (iazette notification dated 03.03.2005 issued under Section a(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which itself acknowledges petitioner's title and poss,3ssion, and on disposal of Writ Petition No. 10163 of 20O5 directing acquisition only by due process of law. It is contended that Respondent lr{o.2, who was never in possession of the land, has subsequently frled a civil suit in O.S. No. 1O5 of 2024 disputing title and, despite the Inatter being purely civil in nahlre, has lodged a false criminal complaint solely to harass and extor the petitioner. According to petitioner, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not disclose any criminal offence, and the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.1 would amount to an abuse of p,rocess of law, therefore, prays to quash CC(SR).No.6591 of 2024 on the tile of learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, for the offences rrnder Sections 322, 324(51, 329(4l.,335, 336(3),339, 6L(21 and Section 3'(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023-

2. Fleard Mr. P. sri Raghuram, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P. Sri Ram, learned csunsel for Petitioner; Mr. Palle Nageshwar Flao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No.1; and Mr. Ashfaq Ahrned, learned counsel for Respondent No- 2.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the principles taid down in State of Haryana a. Bhaian l-a.lt, contends that the pre:;ent criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under '1reez; Supp (11 scc 335 j .'1t

Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). He submits that although registration of an FIR is mandatory in cases disclosing cognizable offences as held in Lalita Kumari a. Sto;te ot: U.P.2, the dispute in the present case is purely civil in nature and criminal law is being misused to exert pressure on the petitioner, which is irnpermissible, as held in Anukul Singh a. Stqte of tI.P.o.It is argued that Respondent No.2 has faited to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or explain the inordinate delay in lodging the private complaint, clearly indicating mala fid"es, especially in view of the pending civit litigation. Further, the mandatory procedure prescribed in Prigornteo. Sriuq.staua. o. St;ortr- of U.P4. was not followed, as no proof was produced to show that the complaint was first taken to higher police authorities when FIR was allegedly 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 he ought not to have maintained the private complaint as the element of criminality is absent, hence, the same is liabte to be quashed. It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordT.. with law, contrary to the principles laid down in S.lL ViJagatakshlrrri a. Stolte of Karnataka, r.r'herein it was held as follows: "The obuious caveat being tlurt tle allegations, euen if hauing a r:iuil Jlauour to them, must prima facie disclose an oueruthelning el€rnent o.f ctinr;ttalitg. In the absenre of tle element of ciminalitg, tf both ciuil and '{zo t+; 2 scc r '(Crl.Appeal No. 4250 of 2O251 '(20tst6scc287 ..1. .. '...

criminal3ases are allowed. to conthtue, it will definitelg amount to abuse of tle pn .x,ss of the court, which the courts haue alutags tried to preuent bg putting a stop to ang such crhninal proceeding, uthere ciutl proceedings haue alreadg been institttted with regard to tle sante issue, and the element of criminalitg is absent. If such elenrcnt is absent, the proseantiott in questiort tuould have to be quashed. In this connectiort, Paramjeet Batra u- State of uttarakhnnd (2013) I J SCC 673 canbe refetedto: "12. Whether a complainf discloses a ciminal offence or not depend.s upon the nature of facts alleged thereht Wtetlrcr essential ingredients of criminal olfence are present or not has to be judged by tlrc High court. A complaint disclosing ciuil trantsactions may also haue a criminal texture. But ttrc High Court must see whether a dispute which is essential.lg of a civil nature is giuen a cloak of crintinal offerrce. Irt such a situation, if a ciuil remedg is auailable and is, in fad, arlopted as has happenr.d in this ca.se, the High coart stwutd not hesitate to qtash tlrc criminal proceedings to preuent abuse of process of tle Co.urt-"

4. [{r. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent [{o.l-State contends that the complaint contains specilic allegations a ttracting the offences alleged against the petitioner and, since the petitioner has already entered appearance and the matter is pending adjudication through a full-fledged trial, the present Criminal Petition is not maintainable and is tiable to be dismissed.

5. l!{r. Ashfaq Ahmed, learned'counsel for Respondent No.2 contends that respondent No.2 is the lawful owner of the subject property unCer a clear and unbroken chain of title originating from registered plot sales made pursuant to an approved Gram.Panchayat layout during 1987-1989, leaving no land available for petitioner's alleged venclors to sell in 2OO 1, and that petitioner and others, in collusiop#ith police officials, fabricated documents to illegally usurp the property of poor plot owners. He alleges that on 30.1O.2O21, petitioner, with police protection, forcibly entered the edsting residential colony using heavy machinery and demolished houses and temples, rendering several families homeless, thereby comrnitting cogntzable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Respondent No.2 asserts that revenue entries do not confer title, denies petitioner's claim of purchase, and contends that the criminal complaint was fited only after the police failed to act on his complaint despite documentary proof and after he instituted a civil suit for declaration of title. According to him, the criminal proceedings are bona fide, disclose serious offences, and the judgments retied upon by petitioner do not apply, therefore the Criminal Petition deserves to be dismissed. Respondent No.2 relies on s.lv. Vijayorlorkshmi v. State of Karnoltolcds; Kathgagini a. Sidhara;th P.S.Red.dgF; Pritt Soraf o. Str;lte af tffT OelhiT; K- Jagadish u' tldago Kumar G.Ss; Sau Kanal $1hfu$i Polea;rekor u. Sto:te ol Korrnatakae; chelakamarithi venkoltesuarlu a. state of Andhra Pradeshlo.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the rer:ord, t-he case of petitioner, precisely, is that he is the lawful ow'ner and possessor of the subject land, having purchased it through registerecl sale deeds in 20O1 and secured rnutation in revenue records, ' 'zo2s UVE LAW {sC} 758 n 2o2s t-tvhr t,AW (sc) 712 'tt-2021 (sc) 154 8crl.A. No. s 6 or 2o'2o clated 1o. I .2020 "crl.i\.No.255 of 20 19 dated 12.2.2019 '('Clrl.A.No.l0892 of 2ot9 dared 3L.7.2Ot9 \ t '.- and also in continuous possession for over two decades; and that the dispute raisei by Respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature and is already the subject matter of a civil suit, therefore, the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fide intent, 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 proc,:ss.

7. On the other hand, the case of Respondent No.2, precisely, is that he has clear and prior title to the property through registered plot sales made llursuant to a Gram Panchayat-approved layout during 1987-1989. tle denies petitioner's title and alleges that petitioner and others fabriceLted documents to usurp the land of poor pl,ot owners; and that the revenue entries being clairned trv petitioner do not confer title on petitioner, and that no land remaitred u,ith the original owners of the plots, to be sold to petitioner in 2001 , and therefore petitioner has fabricated the documents. The respondent No.2 further alleges that petitioner har; forcibly entered and demolished the houses and temples, and the polict: also colluded wit.h petitioner on 3O.1O.2O2L, therefore, the criminal complaint was bona ftd.e, as the complaint was made after police inactio:e and that the offences atleged require a criminal trial.

8. hr vieu' of the background of respective cases, the.contention of learned fienior Counsel [r:r petitioner (by relying on Vankina / Chamufresuraranath v. The S.H.O., Nagarampalem L&O P.S., .a qt, !

Gunturrll that though'it is not mandatory that every report shall 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 2od respondent approachiag the Court at the first instance and filing a private complaint without approachiag the police shows that the complainant had approached the Court with a mala fide intention, is seriously countered by Respondent No.2 contending that Respondent No.2 first approached Gachibowli Police regarding the incident dated 30.10.2021, that police refused to entertain the complaint and threatened him, and that he thereafter, approached higher police officials including the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, however, his efforts did not yield result, and it is only thereafter, Reslrcndent No.2 approached the trial Court. [n view of t]re specific rebuttal contention of Respondent No.2 asserting the reasons for his approaching the trial Court, the contention of learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanced.

9. Further, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 made specific allegations against petitioner that they have fabricated the documents of the subject propertr,', forcibly entered and demolished the houses and temples and the police also colluded on 30.1O.2O2L. lt is also contended, these allegations even taken on the face value constitute the offences allegecl against petitioner. t \ "120u) tAt-D(cri) r

10. Ir: 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., ca.n be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends ofjustice, or ::o carry out the orders passed under the Code. Further, the Hon'lrle stpreme court in skoda Auto volksuagen rndla prloate Limited u. r'he stqte of Uttar prad.eshr2, categorically held that the High Court has to exercise its inherent porrvrrs under Section 482 cr.P.c. in rarest of rare cases and the said power has to be exercised spar:ingly and with circumspection.

11. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel seeks permission to raise all the crrntentions available to petitioner as per larv, before the trial Court. Considering the submission made, this Court grants liberty to petitioner to raise all the contentions available to him as per law, before the trial Courl.. L2. Ar:cordingly, the Criminal Petition is closed.

13. Miscellaneous petitions pencling, if any, shall stand closed. s-D/-_ P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR' -.f(s- SECTION OFFICER It[aom) to s,c-a-4rl //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally.

2. One CC copry to Sri p.SriRam,Advocate tOpUCI 3' Iyffrnl: rtSt?itlic Prosecutor, Hish court ror the state or reransana,

4. Two CD Copies &

HIGH COLIRT DATED:1711212025

ORDER

GRLP.No.6312 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS CLOSED _.r t: tA .) { .?, ,l fl I I

lt * a$ Y i,,D -t