THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2910 of 2021

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.582 of 2020 on the file of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 336, 352, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.10.2020 at around 10:26 AM, 10 security guards trespassed into the area where the complainant’s electricity switch is located and disconnected the power supply without any prior notice or intimation, causing severe inconvenience. When the complainant approached the LHROWS helpdesk to question the action, around 10 guards surrounded him, posed a serious threat, and issued verbal threats. The complainant also stated that the helpdesk staff and security guards acted on instructions from the LHROWS Management Committee (MC) to disconnect the electricity in retaliation for his refusal to pay an illegally demanded excess amount under Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 is the owner of Flat No.401, LH-05, and he has not paid the Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges for the month of September 2020. As per the Bye-Laws of the Lanco Hills Residential Owners and Welfare Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), a notice was issued on 28.09.2020 and affixed on the notice board, informing flat owners to pay the due CAM charges within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the Society would take steps to disconnect the power supply in accordance with Bye-Law No.7(x). The Society also published a list of defaulters, in which the name of respondent No.3 appeared at Sl.No.26, showing due amount of Rs. 3,753/-. Inspite of receipt of said notice, respondent No.3 failed to make the payment. Hence, the Society disconnected the power supply, acting in accordance with the Bye-Laws.

4. He further submitted that respondent No.3 lodged a complaint on 01.10.2020, based on which Crime No.582 of 2020 was registered. However, even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Sections 448, 341, 336, 352, 504, and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner, while discharging his duties as the President of the Society, acted in accordance with the Bye-Laws. He further submitted that with respect to the very same allegations, respondent No.3 has already filed SOP No.201 of 2020 before the Court of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, and the said SOP is pending consideration. He also submitted that the tenure of the petitioner as President of the Society was completed long back and thereafter two subsequent Managing Committees have taken charge. The Society lodged a complaint against respondent No.3, which was closed on the ground that the matter was civil in nature. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the SOP are same and purely civil in nature. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 is a clear abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner has not enclosed any piece of material to prove that he was elected as a President of the Society and the Society does not have the authority to enhance the CAM rates from 2.87 per sq.ft to 2.95 per sq.ft without authorization from the General Body meeting. Therefore, the Society is not entitled to revise the CAM charges in the absence of such approval. He further submitted that respondent No.3 paid CAM charges @ 2.87 per Sq.ft and he is only due an amount of Rs.3,753/-. The Society has not taken any action against the other defaulters and with an