THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6772 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.10213 of 2021 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The de facto complainant, who is the Estate Officer at M/s. Power Links Providers, lodged a complaint on 29.12.2020 stating that Indus Towers Limited (formerly known as Bharathi Infratel Limited) had lawfully occupied the H.No.8-2-674/13/2, near Vijaya Bank, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, on lease basis, under a lease agreement executed on 06.02.2018, which is valid up to 05.02.2029, with the lawful owners namely Mrs. Hameeda Sultana and LW-2/Mohd. Rashid Abbas Ali.

Mobile towers were erected under leave and licence agreements. Owing to property disputes between LW-2 and the petitioner-accused No.2, the petitioner-accused No.2 threatened the de facto complainant to vacate the premises. Upon refusal, the petitioner-accused No.2, out of grudge, hired accused No.1. On 28.12.2020, both of them trespassed into the subject premises and accused No.1 has cut the electric cable supplying power to the telecom equipment, causing disruption to the public services and loss to the Company.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the complaint. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The petitioner-accused No.2 was in the U.K. on the alleged date of incident, but not in India. He lastly visited India in 2020 and returned to U.K. on 12.10.2020. Therefore, the question of his committing the offences alleged does not arise. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The record discloses that there are property disputes between LW-2 and the petitioner-accused No.2, who are the own brothers and the said disputes are purely civil in nature. Although the alleged incident had occurred on 28.12.2020, the present complaint was lodged on 29.12.2020 at 19.00 hours, with no explanation provided for the delay caused. Crucially, the Photostat copies of the petitioner’s passport, reflects that he has visited India on 05.10.2020 and left to U.K. on 12.10.2020. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner was not in India on the date of alleged offence and the question of his involvement in the crime does not arise.

7. The statement of LW-2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly shows although he was initially the owner of the subject premises as per the rental agreement, subsequent bifurcation of properties between himself and the petitioner-accused No.2 resulted in the subject premises falling to the share of petitioner-accused No.2. It is further stated that in the light of the said bifurcation, the petitioner-accused No.2 would have asked the de facto complainant to vacate the subject premises, which the de facto complainant refused, and it is on account of such refusal, the petitioner-accused No.2 would have committed the offence.

8. The petitioner-acc