THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4524 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1191 of 2023 on the file of learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 290 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2023 respondent No.2/de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that in the year 2020 flat owners of Sai Manor Apartment at Doctor's colony, Saroonagar formed an association for purpose of common amenities, accordingly they have chosen complainant. While the matter stood, the petitioners, who were residing in terrace area by constructing a flat in VI floor without any permission from any governmental authorities and the petitioners threatening all the flat owners not to come over terrace and it is meant for their exclusive enjoyment and petitioner No.1 threatening all flat owners stating that he is a retired police officer and can foist false cases who ever enters in terrace area. Further, when complainant went to terrace area, petitioner No.1 picked quarrel with him and foisted false case against him and his wife at Saroornagar, Police station vide CC.No.3070 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C., and again another case was also registered against him in Crime No.884 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 427 of IPC. Petitioner No.1 often picking up quarrels by rising loud filthy language and also threatening all flat owners not to use common rights over terrace area.

3. Based on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 290 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed the charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1191 of 2023, before the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against them.

4. Heard Sri K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri G. Raj Kumar, learned counsel on record for the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. The notice sent to respondent No.2 was returned with an endorsement ‘Unclaimed’, which deems to be served.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint and charge sheet filed against the petitioners no way connected with them and that they are intended as a counterblast to the criminal cases initiated by the accused against respondent No.2. A perusal of both the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and the accompanying charge sheet clearly reveals that the underlying dispute pertains to the usage of terrace rights, which is inherently civil in nature and does not attract criminal liability. There are no allegations that would constitute an offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, as there is no element of wrongful restraint alleged. He further submitted that similarly, the ingredients of Section 290 IPC are not attracted, as the alleged incident did not take place in a public area nor does it involve public nuisance. As for the offence under Section 506 IPC, the complaint contains only a vague reference to threats made in filthy language, without any specific or substantive allegation that would amount to criminal intimidation. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition, contending that the offences under Sections 341, 290, and 506 of IPC are duly