THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6136 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.679 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR Special Mobile Court) at Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Sections

448 and 453 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Ms. Devara Samhitha, learned counsel representing Mr. P.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohammad Abdul Rauf, learned counsel for respondent No.2- de facto complainant and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2 are the son and daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant. There are disputes between them regarding distribution of properties. The petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2 subjected the de facto complainant and his wife/LW-2 namely S.Vijaya to mental harassment. On 10.11.2016, the petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2 executed an agreement on bond paper, wherein, they have written that they do not have any legal rights over the house bearing No.10-2- 380/1 and plots. However, on 06.12.2019, the petitioner-accused No.1 instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.467 of 2019, in which the Court concerned granted a status quo order on 14.12.2019. On the same day i.e., on 14.12.2019, the de facto complainant and his wife went to the house of their daughter. Upon their return on 20.12.2019, they noticed that the petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2 have criminally trespassed into their house by breaking open the lock and shifted all the domestic articles into the rear room, where the petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2 were residing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the property disputes between them. The disputes between the parties are purely civil in nature and a civil suit is pending. The petitioner is the son of the de facto complainant, as such, the question of criminal trespass into his own property and committing any theft does not arise. The petitioner has filed a civil suit against the de facto complainant and after receiving notices in the said suit, the present complaint was foisted against the petitioner and his wife, as a counterblast. The petitioner is taking care of his parents. It is also contended that except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner. Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-de facto complainant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor in one tone contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. As seen from the record, it is evident that there are triable issues and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be decided after conducting full-fledged trial by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1.

7. In view of the above, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, since the case is of the year 2020, the trial Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. The parties and their counsel shall co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the matter.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_