IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4906 of 2023 DATE OF ORDER:10.03.2026 Between:

Sri Anand Kumar Dubbaka & another ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another ...Respondents

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.2883 of 2020, on the file of the learned XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri G.Subash, learned counsel representing Smt.A.Anasuya, learned counsel on record for the petitioners as well as Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Jagini Venkata Naga Raju, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2.

3. The case of prosecution is that the de facto complainant/LW1 is staying in 2^nd floor of H.No.8-2-521, Kummariguda, Secunderabad and that accused No.1, who is his own brother, stays in the ground floor of same address and that the said property belongs to their father. It is alleged that on 24.09.2020 at about 16.00 hours, in the absence of LW1, both the accused Nos. 1 & 2 illegally trespassed into the house of LW1, damaged his Almarah, valuable items and thrown away all the household articles and that they abused and threatened LW1 with dire consequences.

4. Learned petitioner’s counsel submitted that the allegations are false and that when the de facto complainant alleges that the offence was committed in his absence, he cannot allege that the accused threatened him with dire consequences. He further submitted that notice under Section 41-A was served on them on 27.10.2020 while the charge sheet was filed on 15.10.2020 which is much prior in time. That means that charge sheet itself is manipulated and that the Police are hand-in-glove with the de facto complainant. The date of offence is 24.09.2020 while the complaint is lodged on 30.09.2020. If at all the alleged incident has occurred, the de facto complainant would not have kept quiet for a period of six days. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that there are property disputes between both the parties and when the de facto complainant went out, his belongings were thrown away and that inspite of the door being locked, they have removed door itself and have damaged the interiors in the house of de facto complainant. He further submitted that whatever defence the petitioners want to take, they may raise the same before the Trial Court. But pendency of civil dispute cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the offence is prima facie made out against the petitioners. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. Admittedly, the de facto complainant and the accused No.1 are brothers and there are property disputes between both the parties. It is alleged that in the absence of de facto complainant, the accused have trespassed into his portion and thrown away the articles in the house. The statements of tenants, who reside in the same premises, are recorded by the prosecution and they are listed as LWs 3 to 5. Their evidence need to be tested during the course of trial. It is borne out by record that Partition Suit vide O.S.No.213 of 2018 was pending before the Trial Court for adjudication. The statements of LWs 3 to 5 are in support of the case of the de facto complainant.

8. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that trespass cannot be alleged against co-owner and that since he is the brother of the de facto complainant, trespass cannot be alleged against him and the property was acquired by their father and that he too has a right over the property. Admittedly, both of them are residing in their resp