THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings including the order dated 19.04.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.378 of 2025 in Crime No.379 of 2024 in CC No.3982 of 2025 on the file of the I-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Goverdhan Venu, learned counsel representing M/s. Nomos Vistas, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have broken the boom barrier, which was guarded by the security guards and that they have threatened the security guards and abused them in filthy language at the stilt floor of the apartment at H.No.5-9-19, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad and have damaged the property pertaining to the de facto complainant causing financial loss. It is alleged that they have trespassed into the stilt floor area and parked their vehicles forcibly, causing inconvenience and trouble in the premises, created galata and unrest to the occupants of the apartments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not committed any such alleged act of trespass or abusing the security guards and that they never trespassed into the premises of the de facto complainant and have never caused any financial loss to him. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners based on a false complaint would be an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the earlier complaint filed by the de facto complainant has been closed by referring it as civil in nature, pursuant to which the de facto complainant has filed a protest petition before the court of I-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, upon which the investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 292, 352(2) read with 3(5) of BNS against the petitioners. Thus, in the first instance, the police could conclude that the allegations are false and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Budida Rajaiah v. S.H.O. Manthani P.S., 2022 Latestcaselaw 1999 Tel and in

Mr. Sultan Ahmed Khan and others v. The State of Telangana and another, Crl.P. 110 of 2022, dated 25.10.2024

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that though the petitioners have influenced the police authorities by their high handed nature and the proceedings were closed as civil in nature, but he filed protest petition and the trial court has rightly allowed the protest petition and ordered for investigation. The prima facie case exists against the petitioners and that they have ample material to prove the offence against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The offences alleged against the petitioners 329(3), 115(2), 292, 352(2) read with 3(5) of BNS. The petitioners are alleged to have trespassed into the stilt floor area of the apartments and damaged the boom barrier. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in Budida Rajaiah’s case (1 supra), wherien it was held that:

“ A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint discloses that the second respondent is the owner of the agricultural land and 5 she raised seasame and green gram crops. On 09.08.2014, at about 11:30 AM., the entire crop was damaged by

petitioners/A-1 and A-2 by using tractor. The said allegations are made only with an intention to convert the civil litigation into a criminal case. It also appears from the documents filed by the petitioners that the second respondent lost before the courts below about her rights over the property and still she claims rights over the property and fi