The court confirmed that serious allegations involving life imprisonment cannot be quashed without thorough examination and presented evidence.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 in FIR No.400 of 2025 dated 18.04.2025 on the file of XIV Additional metroplitan Magistrate, Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 3 18 (4), 329 (3), 338, 336(3), 340(2) r/w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the defacto complainant - 2^nd respondent against the petitioners alleging that on 17.04.2025, at 6:30 pm, petitioner No.1/accused No.1 - S.S. Raju and his gang of over 10 people, including petitioner Nos.2 to 3, forcefully tried to trespass into their lands in Shamshiguda Village and stopped them from site cleaning work and threatened them. The complainant stated that Raju had previously been given a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in 2014 to look after the lands, but it was cancelled in 2015 due to his fraudulent activities. Despite the cancellation, S.S.Raju continued to represent himself as the GPA holder of late Ganesh Ghadiyal with a malafide intention to grab the lands and collected over ₹30 lakhs from innocent people by signing agreements in 2023. A criminal complaint was registered against Raju earlier, and he was arrested in a documents forgery case for grabbing Government land. Further, due to his illegal acts his co-partners SSR Infra have also given a paper publication regarding withdrawing him from the partnership firm. As such, requested the police to take action against S.S. Raju and others for trespassing, cheating, fraud, and misrepresentation. On receipt of the said complaint, the petitioners were implicated in the case for the offences as alleged. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Voosa Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri C.N.Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. Leanred counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and a false case has been filed against them. He further submitted that a General Power of Attorney (GPA) was executed by the legal heirs of Late Sri Ganesh Gadiyal in favor of Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1, and that cancellation of the GPA, was completely an unaware circumstance. He asserted that the de facto complainant/respondent No. 2 does not have locus standi and is not concerned with the schedule land. A suit for perpetual injunction was filed against respondent No. 2, and the petitioners have filed an implead petition, which is pending.

5. He averred that on 17.04.2025, some persons were seen doing work on the site, and the landowner, Sri B. Naresh, asked Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 to accompany him to the site. When they reached the site, respondent No. 2 used filthy language and claimed that he could do whatever he wanted on the site. The police were called, and the petitioners explained that the schedule land is in Court and no work can be undertaken. He averred that the petitioners claim that the original owners of the schedule land have filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is pending, and that no work be undertaken on the schedule land. While advocating that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case, he prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, and submitted that the petition seeking quashing o