IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:06.01.2026 Between:

Ailaboina Kantha Rao and 7 others …Petitioners/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 petitioners-accused in Case No.CC/0001233/2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahabubabad, for the offences under Sections 20(1) c(ii) (iii) (iv) and (vii) read with 20(1)(d)(i) of Telangana State Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘Forest Act’) and Section 3(1) read with 2(a)(b) of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.

2. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the pattadars and that the present complaint filed by the forest officials is based on false allegations and that the petitioners never encroached the forest land, nor destroyed any forest or government property and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complaint is filed under Section 20 of the Forest Act by the Forest Section Officer, which clearly discloses that the petitioners have damaged the plantation in the forest area by un-lawfully entering into the protected forest area, causing loss of Rs.3,70,240/-. He further submitted that the complaint by the Forest Section Officer cannot be found fault with and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations in the complaint are to the effect that the petitioners have entered into the protected forest area, belonging to Musmi Village and have damaged the plantation raised by the forest officers, which is a serious offence against the environment and public interest and that the said plantation was carried out under a government a reforestation initiative. It is further alleged that the extent of damage is to an amount of Rs.3,70,240/-. Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences under Sections 20(1)

c(ii) (iii) (iv) and (vii) read with 20(1)(d)(i) of the Forest Act, 1967.

7. The contention of the petitioners is that they are carrying out agricultural operations in their own lands and that they were granted pattas by the District Forest Committee, while the contention of the forest officials is that it is the forest belt. Thus, the said dispute is a triable issue and hence, it can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, it is not proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this stage. However, in the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing before the trial court and they shall be present before the trial court as and when their presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA January 06, 2026 KTL