IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.563 OF 2022 DATE: 30-03-2026 Between:

Tummala Manjmula and another … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.745 of 2020 on the file of learned XXI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, registered for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Abhinav, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sharada Katakam, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that since accused No.1 was creating nuisance and quarrelling with the co-tenant, Ramesh, the landlady i.e., de facto complainant, asked accused No.1 to vacate the premises, pursuant to which, accused No.1 bore grudge against the de facto complainant and on 26.08.2018, when the de facto complainant’s daughter and grand-daughter arrived from U.S.A., in the night at about 08:30 PM, while they were having dinner in the house, accused No.1 and her son, accused No.2, went to the de facto complainant’s house, picked up a quarrel with her and abused her in filthy language in front of her daughter, grand-daughter and other relatives. Further, accused No.2 has threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences saying that he belongs to Rayalaseema and he can do whatever he wants and that they would kill her and that she cannot get them vacated from the house, but he could get her vacated from the house. Therefore, the present complaint is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present complaint is filed to harass the petitioners, who are already facing the civil proceedings; that eviction was already ordered and E.P. is also pending before the trial Court; that the petitioners have already paid 50% of the arrears, but still the present complaint is lodged by the landlady bearing grudge against them, just to harass them; and that the allegations in the complaint do not attract the offences under Sections 506 and 504 I.P.C. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioners. He relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Madhushree Datta v. The State of Karnataka and another, 2025 INSC 105 (Criminal Appeal No.4884 of 2024)

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the criminal proceedings are entirely different from the eviction or execution proceedings pending before the tenancy Courts. He further submitted that the petitioners have vacated the premises in May, 2025 and that they have not paid the arrears. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet point out that the de facto complainant is the owner of house bearing No.8-287 situated at New Vivekanandnagar, Chintal. She resides alone in one of the portions and has let out one portion to petitioner No.1-accused No.1 and since then, accused No.1 has been residing in the said portion with her family members. As accused No.1 was creating nuisance by quarreling with the co- tenant, the de facto complainant asked accused No.1 to vacate the house, pursuant to which, accused No.1 went to the house of the de facto complainant on 26.08.2018 at about 08:30 PM and has abused the de facto complainant and picked up a quarrel with her, while she was having dinner with her daughter, grand-daughter and other relatives. The petitioners herein are facing allegations under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that the offences alleged do not get attracted against the petitioners herein.

8. Sections 504, 503 and 506 I.P.C. are extracted hereun