IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:09.01.2026 Between:

Arun Kumar Singh …Petitioner/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.217 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.

2. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Kalekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the co-owner of the subject property and thus, the allegation of trespass cannot be alleged against the petitioner and thus, the allegations against him are false. He further submitted that even if the contents of the complaint are considered, no offence under Section 447 or 427 IPC is made out against the petitioner herein. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against him.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could examine and record the statements of eye witnesses in this case and that they have ample evidence to prove the offences against the petitioner herein. He further has submitted that there is a lease agreement in favour of the de facto complainant over the subject land, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the subject land and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that the petitioner, the de facto complainant and two others are brothers. About 20 years ago, the de facto complainant took on lease an extent of Acs.3.34 gts., of the agricultural land situated at Thatiparthy Village from their father for a period of 30 years and in the said agricultural land, he is running a company in the name of Aditya Mines & Mineral Works. Their father passed away 10 years ago, upon which, all the four brothers shared the said land among themselves and each one succeeded to an extent of Acs.0.38 gts., of land. However, the lease agreement exists for 10 more years in favour of the de facto complainant. While so, on 12.10.2022 at about 13.30 hours, the petitioner trespassed into the factory of the de facto complainant i.e. Aditya Mines & Minerals Works and damaged the mineral quarts material with JCB and the loss amounts to Rs.2,00,000/-. Again on 01.12.2022, the petitioner has damaged the mineral quarts material worth Rs.1,00,000/- with JCB. Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC against the petitioner.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the de facto complainant being own brothers, no trespass can be alleged against him as he is the co-owner of the property. But, the lease agreement in favour of the de facto complainant alleged to be in existence. A copy of the lease deed is filed along with the petition. A perusal of the said lease agreement discloses that it is executed in favour of M/s. Aditya Mines & Mineral Works, represented by its Partner Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, who is the de facto complainant herein. LWs.2 and 3 are listed as eye witnesses. The veracity of the witnesses and the strength of the documentary evidence, need to be tested during the course of trial. The truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court provided he is represented