THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11070 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.141 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Mamnoor, Warnagal District, registered for the offences under Sections 329 (3), 324 (4), 189(2), 351(2) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri J.Prabhakar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.Kalyani Kanumuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 –

State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioners have decree in their favour and the petitioner is the owner of the property and that the de facto complainant has preferred second appeal which is still pending and that the dispute is purely of civil nature. When the petitioners have a decree of injunction in their favour, the allegation of trespass against them is not tenable and that pursuant to the decree, the de facto complainant has lodged this complaint as an afterthought just out of vengeance, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial Court has dismissed the suit, while the appellate Court has decreed the same. The complaint is dated 03.08.2025. He further submitted that the allegations in the complaint show that the petitioners have trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant destroyed the CC cameras and demolished the structures, therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out the allegations of trespass. A perusal of the record further shows that the petitioner has two decrees in his favour i.e. one is out of A.S.No.27 of 2017, wherein the suit schedule property is the agricultural land of Ac.04- 02 guntas in survey No.374-E and another is out of A.S.No.26 of 2017, wherein the suit schedule property is the open land to an extent of 300 Sq.yards in Grampanchayath Nos.4/77 and 77/A, situated opposite to house bearing Gram Panchayath No.4/93 and

93/A at Bollikunta Village, Sangem Mandal, Warangal District.

7. While the contents of the complaint reveal that the house trespass is done on the property bearing Sy.No.373/e and H.No.41- 2-110. It is not known whether there is overlapping of survey numbers or it is totally a different property, all these facts have to be elicited during the course of trial. Even in case if the petitioners’ property is encroached by others, he has to follow due process of law but cannot take law into his own hands.

8. The allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioners herein. Though the petitioners counsel contends that when there is an injunction in their favour, launching of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is not proper, in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712, the Apex Court has held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie exists against the accused persons.

9. In the light of the said decision and in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the investigation is pending, this Court does not want to interfere with the same.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the police concerned to conclude the investigation at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law. Further, the petitioners shall co- operate with the police as and when required for the purpose of investigation.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 16.09.2025 ns