Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 979
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Kareti Venkata Subba Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.4933 and 5573 of 2020
Decided On : 17-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : C Damodar Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (TG)
Criminal proceedings cannot continue when allegations are too vague to establish essential criminal elements and civil disputes are pending, as this constitutes an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 447, 506 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The Court found that the proceedings against petitioners were an abuse of process, as the allegations in the complaint lacked specificity, and related to pending civil disputes - Complaints alleged fabrication of documents and intimidation regarding land ownership, but the petitioners had valid titles and prior civil suits - The ingredients of the offences did not substantiate against petitioners, justifying quashing of proceedings under Section 482 - Appeals allowed. (Paras 12, 14, 18)
(B) Criminal procedure - Misuse of process - The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be misused to disguise civil disputes, and quashing is warranted when the criminality alleged lacks substantial basis. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who are accused of land-related offences, sought to quash proceedings initiated by a complainant alleging fabrication of documents and unlawful entry into specified land. The petitioners argued their purchase was valid and contested the allegations, citing ongoing civil litigations relating to the same land. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that since the allegations did not establish a clear case against the petitioners, and because similar civil disputes were pending, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. (Para 17)
Issues: The key questions involved whether the criminal allegations were sufficiently supported by facts, and if existing civil remedies precluded the continuation of criminal proceedings. (Para 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court asserted that prior civil proceedings must be disclosed in any criminal complaint, and when the dispute is primarily civil, criminal allegations should not proceed to avoid harassment and misuse of judicial process. (Para 12)
Result: The criminal petitions are allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background details of the property dispute. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments about ownership and absence of criminal intent. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent's claims of misconduct by petitioners. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court analysis of ownership claims in ongoing civil suits. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal principles on quashing criminal proceedings in civil disputes. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. conclusion to quash criminal proceedings. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Criminal Petition No.4933 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 and Criminal Petition No.5573 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 7 and 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.184 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 447 and 506 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).
1.1. As both the criminal petitions arise out of Crime No.184 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, both petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of the same by way of a common order.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The husband of respondent No.2, Mandula Saidulu, purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Survey No. 956, situated at Bangarugadda, in the year 1996, from one Nerella Pappaiah and the said Saidulu subsequently land was divided into plots and sold several plots through Nerella Pappaiah and his sons and retained one plot for construction of a house. In the year 2002, Saidulu passed away and thereafter Nerella Bhiksham, son of Pappaiah, registered an extent of 534 square yards in favour of the daughter of Saidulu, namely, Mandula Harika, under Document No. 2732 of 2007. The second respondent alleged that the petitioners, namely Boddu Swathi Bantu Swathi, Parshanaboina Laxman, Mohammed Sajid Khan, and Saraswathi Gayathri Devi, along with others, created false and fabricated documents and filed a civil suit in 2015 based on such documents. It was further alleged that during 2011 and 2012, Nerella Laxmi and Nerella Karuna, the daughter-in-laws of Nerella Pappaiah, amended revenue records (Sl. No. 110) in collusion with revenue officials. The complaint also alleged that in 2015, several illegal sale transactions were executed, Document No. 542/2015 in favour of Nethi Venkateshwarlu (Ac. 0.30 gts). Document No. 1256/2015 in favour of Boddu Swathi @ Bantu Swathi (Ac. 0.10 gts). Document No. 543/2015 in favour of Kareti Venkatasubba Reddy (Ac. 1.00 gts). Document No. 1257/2015 in favour of Mohammed Sajid Khan (Ac. 0.05 gts), and Document No. 1258/2015 in favour of Saraswathi Gayathri (Ac. 0.02 gts), for which Chilukuri Balakrishna, Vanam Ramakrishna, and Dheeravath. Taurya acted as witnesses. The second respondent submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, vide Letter No D/3814/2015 dated 29-12-2016, and in January 2017, the RDO replied that the land had been plotted since 1996, and that Nerella Laxmi and Nerella Karuna had no ownership rights. Despite this, on 17.09.2020, the alleged purchasers unlawfully entered the land and demanded money from the complainant to permit her entry. Consequently, the second respondent filed a complaint on 02.10.2020 seeking action against the accused. Basing on the above said complaint, Crime No.184 of 2020 is registered, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 7 to 9 and they filed the present criminal petitions seeking to quash the crime against them.
3. Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4933 of 2020, Mr. Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel, representing Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5573 of 2020, Mr. Kiran Palakurthy, learned counsel, representing Ms.Srilatha Palakurthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4933 of 2020 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing fo
