The court ruled that disputes regarding property maintenance and ownership must be resolved in civil court and cannot be litigated as criminal matters, highlighting abuse of legal process.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.9691 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 430 , 503, 504 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that that he and his sisters are the sole owners of the Dr. Yadgiri Complex, and the petitioners are trying to take advantage of his old age to grab his property. The petitioners have allegedly captured the shops and flats of the de facto complainant, collected rent from tenants without his knowledge since 2010, and regularly trespassed into his property, causing trouble. Specific incidents include stopping the lift service on August 17, 2022, and disconnecting the water supply on April 2, 2023. The petitioners have also used vulgar language, abused, and threatened the complainant and his family, putting their safety at risk.

3. Heard Sri S.A. Razack, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - defacto complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant and the petitioners are family members, with the petitioners being the rightful owners and in possession of the Dr. Yadgiri complex. The complainant has occupied flat Nos.402 and 501 without paying maintenance charges for several years, despite repeated requests and notices. Consequently, the petitioners were compelled to stop the lift service and water supply to the said flats, which is a legitimate action in accordance with the Telangana Apartments Act . He further submitted that the present complaint is a blatant attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case, with the complainant having filed several suits and complaints earlier on similar facts, which were either dismissed or pending adjudication. This pattern of behavior indicates a clear abuse of process of law, aimed at harassing and pressurizing the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 430 of IPC is not applicable in this case, as Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments Act empowers the manager or board of managers to cutoff essential supplies in case of non- payment of maintenance charges. The allegations made in the complaint are false, fabricated, and concocted, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the claim of the ownership and possession of the petitioners of the entire complex is entirely false and baseless, lacking any credible evidence. The respondent and his sisters are the absolute owners of the portion of the property gifted by late Smt. B.Indira Devi through registered gift deeds, and the petitioners have no legitimate right or interest over it. The actions of the petitioners, including stopping the lift service and water supply to the respondent's premises, constitute a clear offence and an attempt to interfere with the respondent's legitimate use of his property. The criminal case has been