THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9436 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 2799 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-XIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the aforementioned Calendar Case, which pertains to offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 324(4), 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNS’).

3. I have heard Ms. Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 02.08.2024, respondent No.2 lodged a police report stating that she was in possession of a plot taken on lease from one Munugala Venkat Reddy, where she had constructed shutters. On 19.04.2024, the petitioner, along with others, allegedly trespassed into the said property, used abusive language, painted on the wall that the plot was in dispute, and locked the shutters. Subsequently, on 30.06.2024, certain individuals again trespassed into the property and severed the CCTV camera wires. When the complainant confronted them, they allegedly abused her, threatened to set fire to the shutters if she did not vacate, and erased the previous writings on the wall while claiming ownership of the land. Faced with these circumstances, the complainant locked the shutters. However, on 02.08.2024, when she attempted to reopen them, the petitioner allegedly picked a quarrel, used offensive language, and threatened her to vacate the premises. Based on these allegations, the complaint was lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being a co-owner, had earlier instituted O.S. No.1434 of 2014 seeking partition of the joint family properties. In those proceedings, the trial Court had granted an ad-interim injunction on 27.01.2023 restraining further construction on the disputed property. It was further contended that the present allegations fail to disclose the existence of the pending civil suit and the subsisting injunction order. The petitioner, having no independent rights apart from the joint ownership, maintains that the criminal complaint is a tactic to convert a civil dispute into a criminal proceeding and to retaliate against his objection to the alleged illegal construction. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner was unlawfully detained on 02.08.2024 without registration of any prior police report, and subsequently, a complaint was fabricated and renumbered through fraudulent entries to justify such detention. The charge sheet, it was alleged, merely reproduces the complaint without corroboration from independent witnesses. Furthermore, the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not establish the essential ingredients of mens rea or criminal intent. Hence, the continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], asserting that the case squarely falls within the categories warranting quashing of proceedings.

6. Conversely, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution case rests upon specific incidents and acts attributed to the petitioner. The investigation, supported by eyewitness accounts, discloses the occurrence of the alleged events and the petitioner’s involvement. It was argued that the petitioner’s plea of false implication is a matter of defence that can be established only during trial. Interference at the present stage, according to the prosecution, would unduly prejudice the judicial process. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public