SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 66987

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. Sreenivas Rao, J
Kareti Venkata Subba Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana AND ANOTHER – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.4932 of 2020|Criminal Petition No.5529 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Damodar Reddy, C. Ruthwik Reddy, Krishna Kalyan, K. Venumadhav
For the Respondents: L. Preetham Reddy, M. Vivekananda Reddy

Criminal proceedings arising from disputes essentially civil in nature, such as property title contests, should be quashed when the complaint lacks specific criminal allegations and suppresses the pendency of existing civil litigation to misuse the criminal process for harassment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447, 420 and 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Dispute over land ownership involving registered sale deeds - Pendency of civil suits regarding title and possession - Non-disclosure of civil litigation in criminal complaint - Abuse of process of law.

(B) Quashing of Proceedings - Criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle civil disputes or harass opponents - Where civil remedies are invoked and genuine disputes regarding title exist, criminal prosecution for offences like cheating or trespass lacks substance - Suppression of material facts such as existing civil injunctions renders the criminal complaint untenable.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR registered for criminal trespass, cheating, and intimidation. The complainant alleged that the petitioners had encroached upon his land using fabricated documents. The petitioners contended that the dispute was entirely civil in nature, as multiple civil suits regarding the title of the land were already pending between the parties, and in one instance, an ad interim injunction had been granted in favour of an accused.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the core dispute regarding the genuineness of the documents and land ownership is sub-judice before competent civil courts. The FIR was lodged after a significant delay and lacked specific allegations of criminal intimidation or trespass against the petitioners, and it failed to mention existing civil proceedings.

Issues: Whether the registration of an FIR concerning a dispute that is essentially civil in nature and already pending adjudication before civil courts constitutes an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal law cannot be invoked to bypass civil jurisdiction, particularly when the dispute pertains to land title and registered documents. Suppression of civil litigation in a criminal complaint coupled with a lack of specific criminal allegations necessitates the quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Result: Criminal petitions allowed; proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the criminal complaint and factual background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented regarding the misuse of criminal processes for civil disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court analysis identifying pendency of multiple civil suits regarding the same property. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. application of supreme court precedents on quashing criminal proceedings of a civil nature. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final order quashing criminal proceedings due to abuse of process. (Para 18)

Criminal Petition No.4932 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 and Criminal Petition No.5529 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 and 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.183 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

1.1. As both the criminal petitions arise out of Crime No.183 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, both petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of the same by way of a common order.

2. Brief facts of the case:

The de facto complainant/respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 02.10.2020 stating that in Survey No. 956, the land was originally purchased by Dilkush Begum, W/o Latiff, vide Document No. 602 of 1970 through Nerella Papaiah. The complainant purchased the said land on 02.02.1984 vide registered Document No. 668/1984 and has been cultivating it since then. In the same survey number, the remaining land of Nerella Papaiah was developed into plots and sold through Mandula Saidulu and other mediators in 1996. After Saidulu’s death, his son and daughter-in-law sold portions of the land through registered documents. Subsequently, certain persons, namely Boddu Swathi alias Bantu Swathi, D/o Bantu Buchibabu, Parshanaboina Lakshman, Mohd. Sajid Khan, Kareti Venkata Subba Reddy, and others, began claiming ownership over the complainant’s land by creating false documents and filing cases in various courts. These false documents were allegedly created in 2011–2012 by Nerella Lakshmi and Nerella Karuna, and the revenue records were amended in Sl. No. 110 with the cooperation of revenue staff. In 2015, portions of the land were illegally sold as follows: Ac.0.30 guntas to Nethi Venkateswarlu, S/o Venkatramaiah vide Document No. 542/2015; Ac.0.10 guntas to Boddu Swathi alias Bantu Swathi vide Document No. 1256/2015; Ac.1.00 guntas to Kareti Venkata Subba Reddy vide Document No. 543/2015; Ac.0.05 guntas to Mohd. Sajid Khan vide Document No. 1257/2015; and Ac.0.02 guntas to Saraswathi Gayathri Devi vide Document No. 1258/2015. Witnesses to these registrations were Chilukuri Balakrishna, Vanam Ramakrishna, and Dheeravath Thavoorya. The complainant filed a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, vide Letter No. D/3814/2015 dated 29.12.2016, requesting an enquiry. The Tahsildar reported in 2017 that the layout of plots prepared by Nerella Lakshmi and Nerella Karuna in 1996 was invalid and that the persons claiming ownership had no legal rights. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer disposed of the complainant’s appeal in January 2019, bypassing the earlier findings. Despite this, Bantu Buchibabu, with the alleged cooperation of revenue officials, illegally registered the land in his daughter’s and others’ names. The complainant has been repeatedly threatened, and civil cases have been filed against him to harass him. On 17.09.2020, Bantu Buchibabu and others threatened the complainant, demanding money and warning of illegal occupation of the land if the amount was not paid. Due to fear, the complainant refrained from filing an earlier complaint, but following news reports about similar activities, he has now come forward to submit this complaint and requests that necessary action be taken against the persons responsible for the ille

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top