Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to related civil disputes; both can coexist if criminal allegations substantiate independent wrongful conduct.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No. 7 of 2026 on the file of Indrakaran Police Station, Sangareddy, wherein the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 285, 270, and 223 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

2. Heard Mr.N.Joy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and two others are the owners and possessors of the property covered under Sy. No.114, admeasuring Ac.1–28 guntas, situated at Cheriyal Village, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District. When respondent No.2 and others tried to interfere with the subject property, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and two others filed a suit in O.S. No.387 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, against respondent No.2 and six others, seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. While the said civil suit is pending before the competent Civil Court, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint on 28.01.2026, alleging that the petitioners were obstructing the transportation of vehicles, causing inconvenience to the villagers, and damaging the Nakshabata, thereby giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. The nature of the allegations is purely civil in nature, and the present complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the civil suit.

4. He further submitted that the alleged Nakshabata is private land belonging to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and two others, and that the same forms part and parcel of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.2, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 175 of the BNSS, lodged the complaint. 5. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 , is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another , (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, basing on the instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrakaran Police Station, Sangareddy, dated 04.02.2026, submitted that the subject Nakshabata has been in existence for a long time and has been used by the villagers and others as a public pathway. The same is recorded as a public bata in the Gram Panchayat records as well as in the revenue records. The Giridawar, Kandi Mandal, and the Mandal Surveyor, after conducting a survey, submitted a report dated 28.01.2026, wherein it is stated that the Nakshabata is not private land. The petitioners, without having any manner of right, damaged the Nakshabata, thereby causing inconvenience to the Gram Panchayat of Cheriyal Village, villagers and other pattadars of Cheriyal Village.

7. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has already served notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.8 and 9 and is ready to serve notices