IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5738 OF 2021 DATE: 17-02-2026 Between:

Rodda Nagamani and two others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through Police Station Mandamarri, Mancherial, High Court of Judicature of Telangana, 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 Crime No.122 of 2021 of Mandamarri Police Station, Mancherial District, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 324 and

506 read with 34 I.P.C.

2. Heard Smt. N. Kamala, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Kanya Kumari, learned counsel representing Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant, beat her and her husband and threatened them with dire consequences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have never committed any such act of trespass and that if there is any property dispute, the same can be settled on civil side, but the de facto complainant has filed the present complaint to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute to settle the scores on civil side. She further submitted that the husband of petitioner No.1 has purchased the subject land and thus, the petitioners are the owners of the subject land and that a Suit is pending to settle the issues between both the parties. She further submitted that on earlier occasion, Crime No.255 of 2020 of Mandamarri Police Station, Mancherial District, was registered with the same set of allegations and the same was closed as ‘civil nature’ by the police. Now, the present crime is registered based on the false complaint of the de facto complainant. She, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that in O.S.No.66 of 2013 injunction is granted in favour of the de facto complainant and it shows that the de facto complainant is the owner of the subject land and that the petitioners do not have any right over the subject land and they cannot trespass into the subject land. She, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that prior to granting stay in this matter, the Investigating Agency could collect the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor on examining LW.2. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners have trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant and started making construction and when the de facto complainant and her husband went to the site and questioned them, they have beaten them, abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. Thus, the allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioners under Sections 447, 324 and 506 I.P.C. The petitioners’ counsel contends that the petitioners have filed W.P.No.5787 of 2020 before this Court and during pendency of the said Writ Petition and in spite of the earlier complaint being closed as ‘civil nature’, the present complaint is lodged by the de facto complainant. However, the allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioners and the Medical Certificate collected by the prosecution shows that LW.2 sustained simple injuries. Further, the statements of LWs.1 to 4 furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also disclose the occurrence of the alleged incident. Thus, the investigation has to go on to unravel the truth. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to direct the police to complete the investigation strictly in