THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10887 of 2025 ORDER:-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.886 of 2024, on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act / Additional Sessions Judge Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)

of SC/ST Act, 1989.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the owner of the land in Sy.No.54/E and that he filed a suit for injunction on 18.04.2024 and obtained an injunction order against the defacto complainant. While the defacto complainant has filed a Writ Petition but could not obtain any orders. Thus, out of grudge, to settle the scores in the civil matter, he filed the present complaint on

15.05.2024 alleging false offences against the petitioner herein. He further submitted that according to the complaint, the alleged offence occurred one month prior to lodging of complaint i.e., on 15.05.2024. Thus, it is an afterthought of the defacto complainant to settle the matter. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the pendency of the civil suit is no point for consideration in the criminal proceedings. He further submitted that when there is a complaint and if allegations are disclosed with regard to criminality, then the criminal proceedings are maintainable and it is for the police to investigate and it is for the criminal court to ascertain the truth in the complaint, but it cannot be quashed away just because the civil proceedings are pending before the Court.

5. Perused the record. The petitioner has filed copies of the suit pending before the Trial Court and also the copy of the Sale Deed and other documents. His contention is that when a civil matter is pending and when there is an injunction in his favour, criminal proceedings cannot be invoked against him. He relied upon a decision reported in the case of Doddapaneni Umamaheswar Rao and others Vs.Navuru Gopal Reddy and another, 2012 SCC Online AP 1313 wherein, Para 9 of the said Judgment reads as under:-

“The matter which essentially involves dispute of civil nature should not be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceedings which may be resorted to as a short cut to execution of a non-existent decree”. Complaint filed making allegations of cheating against the appellants whereas the case in fact involved civil dispute relating to a contract. In such event the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

6. By observing so, the learned Judge of this High Court has quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in the said case.

7. In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712, the Hon’ble 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 case exists against the accused persons. In the present case, the allegations do point out the offences under Section 447, 427 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner and the matter is pending vide C.C.No.886 of 2024, on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act / Additional Sessions Judge Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, it is

deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court.

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Trial Court to dis