THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4545 OF 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.926 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sirpur-T, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324(5), 329(3), 292 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2024 the de facto complainant, lodged a complaint before the Police against the petitioners stating that on 08.03.2024, she had taken 3 acres of agricultural land on lease in Survey No.275, situated on the outskirts of Sirpur-T village, from one Boddu Thirupathi, S/o Bapu, aged 41 years, of Rebbena village. She paid a lease amount of Rs.15,000 per acre, totaling Rs.45,000, and has been cultivating cotton on the said land during the current season. On 15.07.2024 at about 0800 hours, three individuals, namely Vajjala Ramesh Babu, Revuri Narayan Reddy, and Revuri Ashok, all residents of Sirpur-T village, illegally trespassed onto the leased land. They ploughed the land using a tractor and cultivator, causing damage to the cotton crop cultivated over 3 acres, resulting in a financial loss of approximately Rs.1,50,000 to the complainant. They also allegedly abused her in filthy language. The complainant approached village elders seeking a panchayat to resolve the issue and claim compensation, but the accused persons did not attend the panchayat nor paid any compensation.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the case in Crime No.118 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 324(5), 329(3), 292 read with 3(5) of BNS and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.926 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sirpur-T. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Heard Ms. G.V.S.S.Sruthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are purely civil in nature and have been given a criminal colour with a malicious intent and that respondent No.2 lodged a false complaint to implicate the petitioners, though she was well aware that a civil suit in O.S.No.97 of 2023 was pending between the parties, and an injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioners vide I.A. No. 202 of 2023 dated 21-02-2024, restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. He further submitted that despite the said order, respondent No.2, with an intention to harass the petitioners and as a counterblast to the pending civil litigation, foisted a false case and filed a private complaint leading to registration of FIR No.99 of 2024 dated 02-07-2024 and C.C. No.820 of 2024 dated 08-10-2024 for alleged trespass, damage, abuse, and threats.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are in lawful possession of the subject land as per the Tahsildar's report in Rc.No.A/281/2023 dated 28-07-2023, and respondent No.2 has no right or title over the said property and that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in CRLP Nos.16379 and 16432 of 2014 dated 31.08.2023, which followed the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 355 wherein it was held that when the dispute is essentially civil in nature, giving it a criminal colour amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that though there is a civil dispute, it is not a ground to quash the proceedings, as