Civil proceedings do not preclude criminal action if prima facie evidence exists against accused persons.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.726 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 3 29 (3), 324(4), 132 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 .

2. Heard the submissions of Sri B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Erigi Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the property to an extent of Ac.01-33 guntas in suvey No.16 and that there is a dispute with boundary wall and that the HYDRAA has issued notice to the petitioners and that they have replied stating that they are the owners of the property and that they have not encroached any land and that they also have documents in support of their case and that the HYDRAA, without considering their reply, has lodged the present complaint. He further submitted that the proceedings are civil in nature but the HYDRAA has intentionally converted it into criminal case and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complaint discloses that the petitioners have encroached the Government land and when the HYDRAA officials went to remove the encroachments, they have obstructed the officials in their official duties. Since the petitioners have occupied the public space the officials have rightly initiated the action against them, he therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The complaint is lodged by the Inspector of Police, HYDRAA. The recitals of the complaint discloses that the petitioners have encroached the open space in HUDA approved layout of 1094 Sq.yards in HUDA layout at Nalanda Nagar Colony Welfare Society, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar. Thus, the allegations specifically point out that they have encroached the land. Further that when the officials have gone with their officers on duty, when they have gone to the place to remove the encroachments, it is alleged that they have obstructed the officers from discharging their duties. The offences alleged are under Sections 3 29 (3), 324(4), 132 of BNS and Section 3 of the PDPPA.

7. The petitioners contention that they are the owners of the land and that they have documents in support of their case, however, the Government officials have initiated action alleging that the petitioners have encroached the land. The record discloses that the investigation is still in progress.

8. Though the petitioners counsel contends that a civil dispute is converted into a criminal nature and the proceedings are not maintainable against the petitioners, in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy , [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712], the Apex Court has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie exists against the accused persons.

9. Therefore, prima facie the allegations do point out the offences under Sections 3 29 (3), 324(4), 132 of BNS and Section 3 of the PDPPA, hence, there are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.