THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6527 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.562 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned First Class Judicial Magistrate at Nidamanoor (for short ‘trial Court’). The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. D.Ambedkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2- de facto complainant and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-

State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that LW-8/K.Padma is the absolute owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts. in Sy.No.959 and Ac.1.00 gts. in Sy.No.846/A situated at Marthivarigudem, Thummadam Revenue Village, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) and she has leased the same to LW-2/S.Venkataiah.

The de facto complainant, LW-8 and the petitioner-accused No.1 are the siblings. On 17.08.2020, when LW-2 visited the subject property, he observed that the petitioners had criminally trespassed into the subject property and ploughed it. Immediately, LW-2 informed the same to LW-8. Since LW-8 was suffering with COVID-19, the de facto complainant, her brother, lodged the present complaint.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1. There is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.25 gts. in Sy.No.850/UU situated at Marthivarigudem, Thummadam Revenue Village, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District, having acquired it through his father. He is in peaceful possession and enjoyment without any interruption and his name is also recorded in the revenue records as pattadar.

4.2. When the de facto complainant and LW-8 interfered with his possession on 12.07.2020, he has instituted a civil suit seeking perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.94 of 2020 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Nidamanoor, along with I.A.No.169 of 2020 seeking temporary injunction. By order, dated 10.08.2020, temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners. Although injunction order is subsisting in his favour, the de facto complainant and LW-8 trespassed into his land. As such, he lodged a complaint against them on 19.08.2020.

However, the Police did not register it.

4.3. The subject property is different from that of the petitioner’s property. The de facto complainant and LW-8 are no way concerned with his property. The de facto complainant with a personal grudge against the petitioner-accused No.1 relating to the conviction in C.C.No.56 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has falsely foisted the present complaint against the petitioners. If really the petitioners have trespassed into the subject property, the de facto complainant would have initiated civil proceedings against them.

4.4. The petitioners have filed petitions under Sections 251 and 258 read with Section 262 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking to drop or stoppage of the proceedings and discharge them. However, the same were dismissed holding that the only remedy available to the aggrieved accused to challenge an order in interlocutory stage is the extraordinary remedy under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., and not by way of application to recall the summons or seek with discharge which is not contemplated in the trial of the summons cases. Hence, the present quash petition is filed.

4.5. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings ag