IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2055 OF 2021 DATE: 17-02-2026 Between:

Kesula Surender and two others … Petitioners And The state of Telangana, through SHO PS Metpalli, represented by public prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.428 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Metpally, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C.

No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have trespassed into the land of respondent No.2-de facto complainant and when the de facto complainant questioned, the accused threatened him and his family members and have also sent unsocial elements to threaten him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the subject property; that he has an injunction in his favour; that an owner cannot be alleged to have committed trespass into his own land; and therefore, the allegations are false. He further submitted that a civil dispute is converted into a criminal one just to settle the scores with the petitioners herein. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C.

against the petitioners herein.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the civil Suit is filed after the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged; that the trial has commenced before the trial Court; and that the petitioners have to be subjected to trial to bring out the truth. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The present F.I.R. is registered on 08.02.2020 and the ad interim injunction was obtained by petitioner No.1 on 04.02.2020. It is an ad interim injunction and respondent No.2 is yet to be heard.

Thus, it appears that there exists property dispute between both the parties. Both the parties contend that the subject property is their own. The allegations point out the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. LWs.2 and 3 are listed as eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. It is further alleged that the petitioners are resorting to send unsocial elements to the land of de facto complainant to threaten him. Therefore, the evidence of the eye- witnesses needs to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispense 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 before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 17.02.2026.

MD