SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 40440

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
Kareti Venkata Subba Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CRLP 4932/2020



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4932 and 5529 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition No.4932 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 and Criminal Petition No.5529 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 and 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.183 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

1.1. As both the criminal petitions arise out of Crime No.183 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, both petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of the same by way of a common order.

2. Brief facts of the case:

The de facto complainant/respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 02.10.2020 stating that in Survey No. 956, the land was originally purchased by Dilkush Begum, W/o Latiff, vide Document No. 602 of 1970 through Nerella Papaiah. The complainant purchased the said land on 02.02.1984 vide registered Document No. 668/1984 and has been cultivating it since then. In the same survey number, the remaining land of Nerella Papaiah was developed into plots and sold through Mandula Saidulu and other mediators in 1996. After Saidulu’s death, his son and daughter-in-law sold portions of the land through registered documents. Subsequently, certain persons, namely Boddu Swathi alias Bantu Swathi, D/o Bantu Buchibabu, Parshanaboina Lakshman, Mohd. Sajid Khan, Kareti Venkata Subba Reddy, and others, began claiming ownership over the complainant’s land by creating false documents and filing cases in various courts. These false documents were allegedly created in 2011–2012 by Nerella Lakshmi and Nerella Karuna, and the revenue records were amended in Sl. No. 110 with the cooperation of revenue staff. In 2015, portions of the land were illegally sold as follows: Ac.0.30 guntas to Nethi Venkateswarlu, S/o Venkatramaiah vide Document No. 542/2015; Ac.0.10 guntas to Boddu Swathi alias Bantu Swathi vide Document No. 1256/2015; Ac.1.00 guntas to Kareti Venkata Subba Reddy vide Document No. 543/2015; Ac.0.05 guntas to Mohd. Sajid Khan vide Document No. 1257/2015; and Ac.0.02 guntas to Saraswathi Gayathri Devi vide Document No. 1258/2015. Witnesses to these registrations were Chilukuri Balakrishna, Vanam Ramakrishna, and Dheeravath Thavoorya. The complainant filed a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, vide Letter No. D/3814/2015 dated 29.12.2016, requesting an enquiry. The Tahsildar reported in 2017 that the layout of plots prepared by Nerella Lakshmi and Nerella Karuna in 1996 was invalid and that the persons claiming ownership had no legal rights. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer disposed of the complainant’s appeal in January 2019, bypassing the earlier findings. Despite this, Bantu Buchibabu, with the alleged cooperation of revenue officials, illegally registered the land in his daughter’s and others’ names. The complainant has been repeatedly threatened, and civil cases have been filed against him to harass him. On 17.09.2020, Bantu Buchibabu and others threatened the complainant, demanding money and warning of illegal occupation of the land if the amount was not paid. Due to fear, the complainant refrained from filing an earlier complaint, but following news reports about similar activities, he has now come forward to submit this complaint and requests that necessary action be taken against the persons responsible for the illegal registrations and the previous revenue authorities (2011–2012) to ensure justice. Basing on the above said complaint, Crime No.183 of 2020 is registered, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.3, 5 to 7 and 9 and they filed the present criminal petitions seeking to quash the crime against them.

3. Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top