IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2804 OF 2021 DATE: 10-02-2026 Between:

Sri Gangishetty Bikshapathi … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, Keesara P.S., Rachakonda and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.601 of 2019 on the file of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri B. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri B.A.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of respondent No.2-de facto complainant is that on 14.02.2019 at about 09:00 hours, the petitioner-accused No.1 along with accused No.2 criminally trespassed into his land, built one hut and installed robo sand and small bricks making machine.

4. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner is the real owner of the subject property and thus, trespass cannot be alleged against the real owner. He further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a Suit for declaration of title, which is pending. He further submitted that filing of present complaint itself is not correct and that the present case is filed just to harass the petitioner to settle the matter with the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner. He has relied upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Urmila Devi and others v. Balram and another, 2025 Supreme(SC) 1135

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner herein, without there being any title over the subject property, is interfering with the possession of the de facto complainant time and again and is causing lot of disturbance. He

further submitted that there are witnesses to the alleged incident of trespass. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner has trespassed into the plot of the de facto complainant, built one hut and installed robo sand and small bricks making machine. It is further alleged that the petitioner is interfering with the possession of the de facto complainant over the subject property. Thus, the allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioner herein. Further, it is borne out by record that O.S.No.1159 of 2014 on the file of learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is filed by the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction over plot Nos.17 and 18. Subsequently, he filed O.S.No.340 of 2016 before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Malkajgiri, seeking declaration of title over house bearing No.1-29/8 in plot Nos.17 and 18. Thus, it is borne out by record that there is a long drawn civil dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that when the civil suits are pending before the civil Courts, initiation of criminal proceedings is not proper.

8. In Urmila Devi’s case (supra 1), one Shri Ram Baksh Dubey has executed an un-registered Will bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties in the name of his four daughters-in-law as his legatees who, naturally, are the respective wives of testator’s four sons. The reason for the said Will Deed is that he was under the fear of his estate getting jeopardized and trammeled by the alcoholic obsession of his third son Ashish Kumar. After the death of the testator, the third son of the testator has executed a Sale Deed in favour of the third party, while the beneficiaries of the Will i.e., the four daughters-in-law approached the authorities and the mutation order was pass