THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1085 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1078 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabat at Medchal, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 504 and 506 read with

34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Mr.P.Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr.G.Kiran Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.3 and perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the de-facto complainant purchased Plot Nos.308, 309, 310, 315, 316 and 317 admeasuring 333.33 square yards each total admeasuring 2000 square yards in Sy.No.149, Jayabheri Park, Kompally on the name of his wife Smt.K.Meenakshi, from Peri Gopala Krishna and others under registered sale deeds. Thereafter, he got regularized the said plots under LRS. On 26.07.2021 at about 10.30 hours, the complainant with a view to flatten the land called JCB and started work. In the meanwhile, the accused persons illegally tress passed into the above said land and obstructed the JCB from charming the land and also abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, complainant requested for necessary action against the accused persons.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences. He further submits that there is civil dispute vide E.P.No.211 of 2006 in O.S.No.242 of 1986 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, wherein, the de facto complainant has filed E.A.No.166 of 2007 for restoration of the possession of the subject land. The de facto complainant–respondent No.3 has filed the present complaint by suppressing the material fact i.e. the above civil proceedings. The de facto complainant is not in physical possession of the disputed properties as on the date of filing of this complaint. The petitioners have already lodged complaints, dated 08.10.2021 and 26.11.2021 on the file of the very same Police Station i.e. Station House Officer, P.S. Pet- Basheerabad, but said complaints were closed by referring them as ‘civil in nature’, in view of pending civil dispute. The respondent No.3 is trying to convert civil dispute into criminal case. All the allegations levelled against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 are civil in nature. Hence, he prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-

accused Nos.1 to 3.

05. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side. It is apparent on the face of the record that there is civil dispute vide E.P.No.211 of 2006 in O.S.No.242 of 1986 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. The de facto complainant also filed an E.A. in the above E.P. for restoration of the possession of the subject land.

07. As stated supra, there is a civil dispute in respect of subject land. Even though, complainant filed E.A. agitating his rights in the above civil dispute, the same is concealed in the present complaint. The said suppression of material fact goes to the roots of the case and if the said fact is disclosed in the complaint itself, the Police would have the knowledge of involvement of c