IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2300 OF 2024 DATE : 23.03.2026 Between:

Marupally Ram Reddy ...Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana and another …Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.466 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

2. Heard Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1–State.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in C.C. No.466 of 2023, arising out of Crime No.64 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 (criminal trespass) and 427 (mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.04.2023 at about 18:00 hours, the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that he is in possession of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.14.28 guntas in Survey No.71 situated at Ranjole Village. It is alleged that the complainant’s forefathers also had shares in the said land and that adjacent to it lies land in Survey No.68 belonging to one Marpally Ram Reddy. It is further alleged that, while most of the co-sharers had sold their respective extents and the remaining members had fixed boundary stones demarcating their lands. In this backdrop, the petitioner unlawfully trespassed into the complainant’s land, removed the boundary stones, and altered the physical features by laying fencing. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.64 of 2023 was registered.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The allegation of the de facto complainant is that the petitioner trespassed into the subject land and removed the boundary stones, thereby committing offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. During the course of investigation, statements of five material witnesses, including the de facto complainant, were recorded.

7. A careful examination of the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses reveals that all the witnesses have stated that on 29.04.2023, upon visiting the land in Survey No.71, they noticed disturbance of boundary stones and erection of fencing. However, their knowledge regarding the involvement of the petitioner is based on information gathered during enquiry, rather than on direct personal knowledge.

8. Significantly, the prosecution material does not disclose any direct or eyewitness account of the petitioner committing the alleged acts; The source, time, or manner in which the witnesses came to know about the petitioner’s involvement; Any independent or corroborative material linking the petitioner to the alleged acts of trespass or mischief; or any circumstance indicating that the alleged acts would benefit the petitioner, so as to establish motive or nexus. Thus, the statements recorded during investigation are, in essence, hearsay in nature and lack probative value for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case.

9. It is well settled that for an offence under Section 447 IPC, there must be clear material showing unlawful entry with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession. Similarly, Section 427 IPC requires proof of intentional causing of damage. In the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence establishing these ingredients, continuation of criminal proceedings cannot be sustained.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down that where the allegations made in the FIR or the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence or fail to make out a prima facie case, the proceedings are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of proces