THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3861 of 2021

ORDER:

The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.2788 of 2018, on the file of the learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 448, 427, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant had purchased plots bearing Nos.2-79/13/A, 2- 79/15 and 2-79/13 on plot Nos.13 and 15 in Sy.No.11/4, admeasuring 878 Sq.yards from one K.Rohini and others vide document No.17556 of 2005. The said property is located at Hi-Tech City, Kukatpalli, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal and is currently used for school premises. The de facto complainant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment since the date of purchase. Subsequently, Mrs. V.Nalini Ramesh, resident of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad have purchased 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.11/4, which inturn do not have any plot number nor identification marks, is trying to encroach the property of the de facto complainant. In the light of the above, the de facto complainant filed O.S.No.146 of 2006 before the learned VIII Additional Senior Judge, Ranga Reddy District Courts at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and the same was decreed in his favour. Suppressing the said fact, Mrs. V.Nalini Ramesh has filed another suit i.e., O.S.No.1320 of 2010, which is pending for adjudication. On 30.09.2017, around 60 persons allegedly representing Mrs. Nalini Ramesh and aided by her son i.e., Mr. V.Naveen have trespassed into the school premises and got damaged the compound wall, pulled down the CCTV setup, broke notice boards, curriculum in the corridor and forcibly opened one class room and damaged the furniture. On coming to know about the same, the security personal rushed to the spot and tried to resist them and they have beaten the security and threatened them with dire consequences. The security supervisor has immediately reported the matter to the patrolling police team. On seeing the police, they dispersed. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint.

3. Basing on the said complaint, Police Station Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad, registered the case in Crime No.980 of 2017 for the offences under Section 448, 427, 323 and 506 of I.P.C and charge sheet was laid vide C.C.No.2788 of 2018. 4. Heard Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel representing Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Ms.Niyatha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and was never involved in any criminal or illegal activities. There is a civil dispute pending between the mother of the petitioner and respondent No.2 regarding possession over the land in Sy.No.11/4. Respondent No.2 filed a Suit vide O.S.No.146 of

2006 and petitioner’s mother also filed a suit vide O.S.No.1320 of 2010. Both the suits are still pending.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged incident is highly improbable and laughable for the reason that 60 persons were alleged to have been involved in the incident, but none of those persons are made accused just the petitioner is shown as the sole accused in the FIR. Even the investigation officer and the charge sheet, does not speak about the role of the petitioner and the alleged 60 persons. Respondent No.2 is a husband of a sitting Member of Parliament, using the political power, pressurized the police to register FIR against the petitioner and his mother. Therefore, these false complaints against the petitioner and her mother are nothing but attempts by respondent No.2 to give criminal tone to civil litigation. The criminal proc