THE HONOURBLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 735 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir.

2. Heard Mr. B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nouman, learned counsel representing Mr. M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were implicated falsely in the crime. The Investigating Officer simply extracted the allegations made in the complaint and filed charge sheet. Respondent No.2 in his complaint or the Investigation Officer in the charge sheet has not specifically mentioned whether respondent No.2 is owner of the subject property. When there are no specific allegations in the complaint or in the charge sheet that the petitioners have trespassed into the open plot located at the outskirts of Kondamudugu village and damaged the boundary stone, the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not applicable against them.

3.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

1. Anilakumari v. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1732; and

2. Joseph Akkara and others v. State of Kerala rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police and another2

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 has specifically stated in his complaint that he is owner of the property i.e, open plot bearing No.386 located at the outskirts of Kondamadugu village covered in Sy.Nos.562, 565 and 583, admeasuring 477 sq. yards, and the petitioners trespassed into his land and damaged the boundary stones. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the IPC are attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that LWs.2 and 3 are also specifically stated before the Investigating Officer that the petitioners have entered into the plot of respondent No.2 and damaged the boundary stones, and the same has to be

2 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 13847

adjudicated during the course of trial. Hence, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2024.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2024.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 08.10.2023, wherein he specifically stated that he is the owner of the property, i.e., plot No. 386 situated in Sy.Nos.562, 565 and 583 at the outskirts of Kondamadugu village, and the petitioners have criminally trespassed into the above said property and removed the boundary stones. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation by recording the statements of the witnesses, filed charge sheet, wherein LWs.2 and 3 stated that respondent No.2 is the owner of the property and the petitioners have criminally trespassed into the plot of respondent No.2 and demolished the boundary stones. There are specific allegations are levelled against the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not has to be decided after full-fledged trial only and this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of

2024.

7. Insofar as the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire allegations are levelled against the