ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3912 of 2022 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaddamanugu Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2022 at 16:00 hours, the petitioner has trespassed and engaged in illegal construction in the property of respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Thus, Crime No.802 of 2022 of Medipally Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. and charge sheet is also filed, against which cognizance is taken vide C.C.No.3912 of 2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police have not conducted any preliminary enquiry on the allegations made by the de facto complainant prior to registering the crime and filed the charge sheet mechanically. He further submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, as he has purchased the same along with one A. Rahul Reddy through a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.5022/2022, dated 17.05.2022. He further submitted that respondent No.2 claims to have purchased the subject property through the GPA holder of one Mir Vizarath Ali Khan on 07.02.2013. But, the said Mir Vizarath Ali Khan had died in the year 1985. Therefore, the document of respondent No.2 itself is false. He further submitted that the petitioner along with Sri A. Rahul Reddy, has filed a Suit vide O.S.No.41 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Mlakajgiri District, Uppal at L.B. Nagar, and that trial Court has granted ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner after appreciating the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property. He further submitted that a false complaint is filed by the de facto complainant just to harass the petitioner for wrongful gain and that the ingredients of the complaint do not attract the offence of trespass against the petitioner. Since the possession of the petitioner over the subject property is recognized by the civil Court, the petitioner cannot be alleged to have committed trespass into his own land. That, the matter is purely of civil in nature and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the present C.C. would be an abuse of process of law. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the allegations prima facie point out the offence of trespass against the petitioner; that based on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police have thoroughly investigated into the matter and have filed charge sheet; and that they have ample material to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner. He further submitted that though the land dispute is civil in nature, the act committed by the petitioner attracts criminality, as he entered forcibly into the property of the de facto complainant with a JCB and caused damage to his property and therefore, launching of criminal proceedings is very much maintainable. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the Sale Deed of the de facto complainant is based on invalid GPA has to be decided only during the course of trial and that the petitioner cannot go scot-free and that he has to face the trial.

He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioner contends that he has purchased the subject property vide registered Sale Deed, dated 17.05.2022, while respondent No.2 contends that he purchased the property on 07.02.2013. Both of them contend that they are in possessio