IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7681 of 2021 Date: 06.04.2026 Between:

Sri Bushi Reddy Srinath Reddy and 2 others ...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.02 of 2020 on the file of learned XXVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Maheshwaram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2020 at 11:20 hours, accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant, damaged 50 stone kaddies fencing and iron rods using a JCB, and removed them. LW2, who is the Supervisor appointed by the de facto complainant, witnessed the alleged incident and reported the same to LW1, who subsequently lodged the present complaint. Based on this, Crime No.57 of 2020 was registered, the investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 447 and 427 r/w. 34 of IPC.

3. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tera Rajinikanth Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that a Writ Petition has been filed vide W.P.No.25156 of 2021 seeking a direction to the 6^th respondent to conclude the further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 07.03.2020 issued to the 7^th respondent in relation to the alleged illegal construction carried out by the 7^th respondent therein in Sy.No.501 in Lemoor Village, Kandikonda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said petition is still pending, and the matter pertains to the subject property in this case and is of a civil nature. He contended that the lodging of criminal proceedings is neither just nor proper, and hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the notice was issued by the Gram Panchayat on 07.03.2020, directing the de facto complainant to stop the construction, stating that the construction was being carried out without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat.

5. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that subsequent to the notice issued by the Gram Panchayat, the present complaint was lodged on 09.03.2020 out of a grudge against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the de facto complainant proceeded with the construction without obtaining any permission from the Gram Panchayat, despite having been positively requested to stop the construction, and has thereby filed a false complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners had no criminal intention to claim the property of the de facto complainant. They are, in fact, the owners of the property admeasuring Ac.3-26 gts in Sy.No.501 and, to some extent, in Sy.No.493. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is a discrepancy regarding the extent of the land and the survey numbers pertaining to the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein. As far as the present complaint is concerned, the prosecution is not concerned with the dispute of boundaries between the parties. The prosecution is concerned only with the fact that there is an allegation of criminal trespass into the land of the de facto complainant, as disclosed in the complaint. He further submitted that, during the course of investigation, the prosecution was able to collect ample material and could record the statements of witnesses, including the eye-witnesses. Once a criminal element is pointed out in the all