IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6447 OF 2025

17.12.2025

Between:

M/s Daggubati Farms and Estates Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by Sri Daggubati Suresh Babu & three others

… Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor & another

...Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner–company including petitioners claim to be the

lawful owners and possessors of Acs. 4.25 guntas of land in Sy. Nod. 172/A and 281/A of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same through two registered sale deeds from the true and lawful owners, and have been in continuous possession and enjoyment ever since, with its title duly mutated in the revenue records in 2002 under the R.O.R. Act. Prior to purchase, petitioners conducted due diligence by obtaining legal opinion and issuing public notices, and having received no objections, claim to be bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Petitioner further rely on the Gazette notification dated 03.03.2005 issued under Section 4(1)

of the Land Acquisition Act, which itself acknowledges petitioners’ title and possession, and on disposal of W.P. No. 10163 of 2005 directing acquisition only by due process of law. It is contended that Respondent No.2, who was never in possession of the land, has subsequently filed CCSR No. 6586 of 2024 solely to harass and extort petitioners. According to petitioners, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not disclose any criminal offence, and continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, and therefore, prays to quash CC(SR).No.6586 of 2024 on the file of learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, for the offences under Sections 322, 324(5), 329(4), 335, 336(3),339, 61(2) and Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Mr. P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for Petitioners; Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No.1; and Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, contends that the present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS). He submits that although registration of an FIR is mandatory in cases disclosing cognizable offences as held in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., 2(2014) 2 SCC 1, the dispute in the

1(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335

present case is purely civil in nature and criminal law is being misused to exert pressure on petitioners, which is impermissible, as held in Anukul Singh v. State of U.P., 3(Crl.Appeal No. 4250 of 2025). It is argued that Respondent No.2 has failed to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or explain the inordinate delay in lodging the private complaint, clearly indicating mala fides, especially in view of the pending civil litigation. Further, the mandatory procedure prescribed in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P, 4(2015) 6 SCC 287. was not followed, as no proof was produced to show that the complaint was first taken to higher police authorities when FIR was allegedly not registered. It is also contended that Respondent No.2 had already availed a civil remedy against the very same set of allegations against the same persons, as such, she ought not to have maintained the private complaint as the element of criminality is absent, hence, the same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, contrary to the principles laid down in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka wherein it was held as follows:

“The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the eleme