The court ruled that ongoing investigations must be allowed to proceed and that civil disputes do not preclude criminal complaints, emphasizing the need for police to complete their investigations.

ORDER :

(J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, for the alleged offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.1 The case of prosecution in brief is that the de-facto complainant lodged complaint with the police stating that his grandfather, namely, late Chakali Balaiah owns land of Ac. 1.04 gts. in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally village and Ac. 5.33 guntas in Sy. No. 22 of Nagireddypally village, thus, total extent of Ac. 6.37 guntas. The Complainant's father has progeny of three sons, i.e., (1) Pedda Ramaiah, (2) Late Papaiah, (3) Late Laxmaiah and the Complainant father is younger among them and 40 years back those three members divided the ancestral land approximate shares and the complainant's father received (i) Ac. 1.04 gts in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally village, (ii) Ac.1.09 gts in Sy. No. 22 of Nagireddypally, thus, the total extent of Ac. 2.13gts.

2.2. It is further stated that in the year 1996-1997, complainant's father and his brothers quarreled with each other regarding property share, as such in the year 2005, they approached the Civil Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2005 along with I.A. No. 79 of 2005 and obtained status quo order and the above case is pending in the court.

2.3. It is also stated that one Vasudaika Reality venture is adjacent to his land in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally village and on 27.02.2024 Vasudaika Reality’s venture members were occupied 0-25 guntas from the Complainant's land. Then they conducted survey in said land and as per survey report, it was revealed that Vasudaika venture persons occupied 0-25 guntas from complainant's land. Ten months back Vasudaika reality venture left above said 0-25 guntas to the Complainant.

2.4 It is further stated that on 01.12.2024 at about 09:30 hours, the Complainant along with his brother Ramachandraiah went to their land and noticed that Vasudaika Reality venture owner namely Jagarlamudi Venkat Ram, Supervisor Srinivas and others illegally trespassed into the complainant's land and erected a precast wall and commenced road construction within the complainant's land boundaries. Then the complainant asked the same, and after discussion they agreed to remove the precast wall and five days back they removed some portion of precast wall, but not completely removed it. When the complainant asked about the same, they threatened him with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, the Crime No.22 of 2025 was registered for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Krishna Karthik, learned counsel, representing Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated as accused Nos.1 and 2 in this crime. Even according to the complaint, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners is civil in nature and respondent No.2 with an intention to resolve the civil disputes lodged the complaint. He further submitted that in order to attract an offense under Section 324(4) of BNS, which deals with "Mischief," an act must involve causing damage or loss to property, and the act must be done with the intent to cause wrongful loss or with knowledge that it is likely to cause such loss. In the entire complaint, no where it is mentioned that the petitioners have caused damage to the property and therefore, the ingredients of Section 324(4) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners.

4.2.