THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.126 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3680 of 2018 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, arising out of Crime No.347 of 2018 of Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 448, 427 and

506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. A.Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Notice sent to respondent No.2- de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Unclaimed notice is deemed to be proper service of notice. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 2008, the de facto complainant has purchased a plot bearing No.26/A situated in Sy.Nos.201 and 202 (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject plot’) of East Balaji Hills Colony, Boduppal (hereinafter referred to as Society’), from one T.Narendra and got registered the same in his name vide document bearing No.7112 of 2008. Thereafter, he obtained necessary permissions from the HMDA and Municipal authorities for construction of house. On 08.04.2018 at 12.00 hours, the petitioners illegally trespassed into the subject plot and closed pillar pits with JCB. When the neighbouring plot owners reached the spot, on seeing them the petitioners fled away from the scene. Previously also, the petitioners threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences as the subject plot belongs to them. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.347 of 2018 was registered against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.3680 of 2018 for the aforesaid offences.

4. Submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners:

4.1. The petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with the offences alleged. The de facto complainant has purchased the subject plot from his vendor namely T.Narendra and his vendor has obtained LRS. In fact, plot Nos.26-A and 27-A are not existing in the sanctioned layout and the area in the said plots is a part of the public road. After giving due notice and opportunity to the de facto complainant’s vendor viz., T.Narendra and after conducting due inspection of the land, vide proceedings dated 28.01.2019, the HMDA authorities have revoked the LRS granted earlier. Hence, the question of trespassing into the plot of de facto complainant plot does not arise.

4.2. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the President and Additional Secretary of the Society. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the Advisor of Society and the petitioner-accused No.4 is a resident of Colony. Since the Colony people were objecting for raising constructions in the subject plot by making representations since 2011, the present complaint was foisted by the de facto complainant against the petitioners with all false allegations, to continue his illegal constructions over the subject land which is earmarked for public road. On a perusal of list of witnesses, it discloses that none of the witnesses are residents of the Colony, hence, their statements cannot be relied upon. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. 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