THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.23 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that on 03.10.2023 at Siricilla Road, Kamareddy, the accused persons, namely Azar Khan, Lateef Khan, Imran Khan, Imroz, Feroz, Zahed, Shaker, Maulu, Gireddy Shivareddy, Suthari Laxmi, Suthari Poshavva, Saddam, and Md. Sirajoddin, allegedly trespassed into the land measuring Ac.0.43 guntas in Sy.No.43/1/2 belonging to Thakur Sadhekar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., damaged the fencing, gate, and wall causing a loss of about Rs.2,00,000/-, and threatened to kill the complainant. The land had been purchased by the company from Suthari Laxmi and Poshavva in the year 2012, and they had been in possession since then. In the year 2020, Suthari Laxmi and Poshavva allegedly executed a fraudulent sale deed in favour of Gireddy Shivareddy, for which a case in Cr.No.278 of 2020 was registered. In the year 2022, Shivareddy sold the land to Zahed, who later sold it to Azar Khan. The complainant alleged that the accused created fake documents with an intention to unlawfully take possession of the land.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.581 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.23 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Sri K. Karunakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the property in question and was protected by a subsisting injunction order. Hence, the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC could not be invoked against the true owner. He further submitted that the de facto complainant, without any title, possession, or right, attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioners on 03.10.2023 in collusion with others, against whom the injunction order was already operating. He further submittd that the petitioners had lodged several complaints to the police against such miscreants, but no effective action was taken and he denied the allegation in the charge sheet that the petitioners had surrendered before the police and confessed their guilt, and called upon the prosecution to strictly prove the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint itself disclosed the fraudulent conduct of respondent No.2, and that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent and that the claim of respondent No.2, if any, was monetary in nature and purely civil, for which the remedy lay in the civil Court. He further contended that the property of the petitioners was already covered by an injunction order in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, wherein respondent No.2 was the henchman of defendant No.1. He further contended that prior FIRs, including FIR No.568 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023 and FIR No.592 of 2023 dated 08.10.2023, had been registered against respondent No.2 and his associates for similar acts of trespass and assault, including an attack causi