THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6325 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR.No.88 of 2025 before the Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

329(3), 126(2), 351(2) and 79 of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that the respondent No.2 owns a plot near Malakpet Mutton Market with a 15-foot-wide road on the western side, which was previously disputed with petitioner, and a Court judgment ruled in favor of the 2nd respondent. On February 22, 2025, at around 15:35 hours, the 2nd respondent started construction work pursuant to the Court order. However, the petitioner allegedly trespassed onto the land, stopped the construction, threatened to kill the 2nd respondent and his wife, and used abusive language. Based on the complaint, the police issued an FIR against the petitioner in Crime No. 88 of 2025, and the case is currently pending investigation.

Aggrieved by implication in the case, this Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri K.Venkata Vara Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri KLN.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations leveled by the 2^nd respondent, against the petitioner are false and baseless, with no iota of truth, and denied all other allegations. He further submitted that the mother of petitioner purchased a 300 sq. yard land in Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, via sale deed dated September 22, 1978, and the petitioner and his father have been in possession and enjoyment of the property since her death, leasing it to M/s. Yasodha Hospital for car parking. He asserted that a 15-foot road on the eastern side of the property is used for easements, as reflected in the sale deed. He contended that the 2^nd respondent allegedly encroached upon this land with others, raising illegal structures and depriving the petitioner of easement rights, leading to filing of civil suits and writ petitions. He further contended that the 1st respondent, influenced by the 2nd respondent and for monetary benefits, refused to receive the complaints of petitioner, dated August 29, 2024, and April 2, 2025, but registered the complaint of 2^nd respondent against the petitioner. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the 2nd respondent and the mother of petitioner had filed suits for perpetual injunction against each other, with the suit filed by the 2^nd respondent being allowed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide common judgment and decree dated July 3, 2024, in O.S.No.341 of 2014 and the suit filed by petitioner vide O.S.No.1501 of 2013, was dismissed. He contended that the petitioner trespassed into the 2nd respondent's plot on February 22, 2025, threatened him and his wife with dire consequences, and used filthy language, despite knowing about the injunction order against him, due to which the 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint before the P.S. Chaderghat, and the petitioner is alleged to be a chronic litigant with a history of rowdy behavior. Therefore, while advocating that the offences are serious, and a detailed trial is necessary to determine the true facts, and keeping in mind the instances and history of petitioner of filing complaints and writ petitions, including W.P.No.13256 of 2025, which was countered by the 2nd respondent's W.P.No.14241 of 2025, demonstrates an attempt to harass the 2nd respondent under the guise of a civil dispute, he prayed this Court to dismiss this Criminal Pet