IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7279 of 2020 Date:06.01.2026 Between:

Maddula Yella Reddy and another.

...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1528 of 2020 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siricilla District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C).

2. Heard Mr.K.Lakshmana Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr..M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint, basing on the same the learned Magistrate directed the Investigation Officer to conduct investigation. Pursuant to the said order, the Investigation Officer registered the crime and filed final report on 31.07.2020 for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients for the above said offences are not attracted against the petitioners. The nature of allegations are levelled in the complaint or in final report are purely civil in nature. In spite of the agricultural lands covered by Sy.No.89/A situated at Narayanapur Village, Yellareddypet Mandal of Rajanna Siricilla District. The petitioners have purchased the property ad-measuring 07.25 guntas, covered by Sy.No.89/A through registered sale deed by paying valuable sale consideration and since then they have been in possession of the enjoyment of said properties. When respondent No.2 and others are trying to interfere with the said property, the petitioner No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla for grant of perpetual injunction along with the said suit. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.68 and 69 of 2018 for grant of ad-interim injunction wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla on 28.02.2018 directed the parties to maintain Status-Quo and the said Status-Quo order is continuing. He further submitted that respondent No.2 and one Maddula Yella Reddy filed suit O.S.No.34 of 2018 against the petitioners on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla, for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of scheduled property mentioned therein along with the said suit and also filed I.A.No.167 of 2018 for grant of ad-interim injunction wherein learned Senior Civil Judge granted ad-interim injunction and the said injunction order is continuing, when the said two suits are pending. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint further punishable offences to settle the civil disputes which are pending between the competent Civil Court by giving it a criminal color. The petitioners never trespassed into the property as alleged in the complaint. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C are not attracted. He further submitted that the investigation officer was suspended on 02.01.2020. The suspended investigation officer recorded the statements of the witnesses LW3 to LW5 on 20.09.2020 and the said statements are not valid under law. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, vehemently contend