IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1107 of 2024 DATE: 13.02.2026 BETWEEN:

Vemula Raj Kumar …..petitioner/accused No.1 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and others.

…..Respondent/complainant

ORDER

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.471 of 2024 in C.C.No.6497 of 2019 by the learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he had been residing at H.No.12-13-123, Tarnaka, in a house constructed by his father in the year 1973 and that a civil dispute over the property was pending with an injunction order in place. On 04.04.2018, the petitioner, along with about 20 others, allegedly attacked the house, broke the gate and compound wall, forcibly entered, damaged the staircase and doors, and physically assaulted the complainant and his wife. The complainant claimed that the accused attempted to forcibly take possession of the property. The police registered a case, conducted investigation, and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others. The petitioner contended that he was the rightful owner of the property since 2015, had obtained an interim injunction, and that the complaint was false and motivated by previous civil disputes. On the other hand, the complainant denied the contentions of the petitioner and maintained that the accused played a major role in committing the alleged offences. The complainant submitted that the allegations were supported by the charge-sheet and evidence collected during investigation. The Public Prosecutor before the trial Court submitted that the truth of the allegations and the ownership dispute could only be examined during a full-fledged trial and that the material on record prima facie showed the petitioner’s involvement.

3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that at the stage of a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., it was not permissible to decide the veracity of the allegations or examine the probable defences of the accused. The material on record sufficiently indicated prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.

4. Heard Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and Sri G. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.12-13-121 to 124, Street No.3, Tarnaka, having purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 01.08.2013 from one N. Aravind Kumar, and had been in peaceful possession since then and that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.144 of 2015 before the III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, along with I.A.No.402 of 2015, wherein the Civil Court granted an interim injunction restraining the complainant and others from interfering with his possession, which was later confirmed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2021. He further submitted that the complainant and his wife had earlier lodged false criminal cases, one of which ended in acquittal. He contended that the present case was a clear misuse of criminal law to settle a civil dispute and that the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet were vague, contradictory, and did not disclose any offence under Sections 452, 427, or 509 IPC and that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by