IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2271 OF 2023 DATE: 18-03-2026 Between:

Sri Baja Sridhar … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3917 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 D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Notice sent to respondent No.2 returned unserved. But the address is very much same as it appears in the charge sheet. Therefore, notice is deemed to be served on respondent No.2, as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

4. 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.801 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.3917 of 2022.

5. 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 in the year 1993. 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.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegations prima facie point out the offence of trespass against the petitioner and that the police have collected ample material to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner.

He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. The petitioner contends that he has purchased the subject property vide registered Sale Deed, dated 17.05.2022, while it is the case of respondent No.2 that he purchased the property on 01.02.1993. Both of them contend that they are in possession of the subject property. It is also borne out by record that O.S.No.41 of 2022 filed by the petitioner herein is pending before the