IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14419 OF 2025 DATE: 28-11-2025 Between:

Alakunta Mahendar and two others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, through Siddipet I Town Police Station, Siddipet District, High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad and another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14419 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.513 of 2025 of Siddipet-I Town Police Station, Siddipet District, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and

506 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Asifuddin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners purchased the subject land in the year 2023 and got it developed and that there is also ad interim injunction in favour of petitioner No.1. Thus, when the petitioners are in possession of the subject land, the allegation of trespass against the petitioners would be utterly false and that the said allegation cannot be maintained against them. He further submitted that respondent No.2-de facto complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the petitioners, by giving criminal colour to the civil litigation. He further submitted that the petitioners got converted the agricultural land into non-agricultural land and also obtained electricity connection. He further submitted that the offences alleged are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment and hence, the police may be directed to invoke Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objected to the said proposal by stating that though the offences alleged are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment, petitioner No.1 is a rowdy sheeter, who is involved in 15 cases of similar nature and that several cases are yet to come up. He further submitted that hundreds of victims have suffered in the hands of the petitioners and therefore, several cases have been registered against the petitioners herein. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The instructions submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor disclose that a rowdy sheet is opened against petitioner No.1-accused No.1. He is alleged to have involved in 15 cases so far, which are of similar nature. In the complaint, it is alleged that the de facto complainant has purchased the subject land in the year 2020. While so, on 23.12.2023, the petitioners have trespassed into the subject land and removed the boundary stones and when the de facto complainant and others tried to stop them, the petitioners have threatened them with dire consequences. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. The allegations in the present case point out trespass and mischief and also that the petitioners have threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences.

7. The petitioners’ counsel contends that since the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment less than seven years, the procedure under Section 41A Cr.P.C. may be invoked. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C.

The same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“41. When police may arrest without warrant.-(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person -

(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence;

(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may e