IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:16.03.2026 Between:

Anumolu Purnachandar Rao …Petitioner/Accused No.3 And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana and another … Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused Nos.3 in SC No.214 of 2020 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of SC & ST (PoA) Act cases cum Additional Sessions Judge Court at Nalgonda, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC & ST Act’).

2. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri Rapolu Abhinav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the de facto complainant owns an extent of Acs.4.00 gts., of patta land. He gifted an extent of Acs.3.00 gts., of land in favour of his first wife- Laxmi in order to meet her treatment expenses as she was suffering with cancer. The said gift deed was registered. While so, one Nunna Satyanarayana and Nunna Surya Kumari cheated her husband and got the said land registered in their favour. Her husband has filed a case seeking cancellation of the said patta. Thus, there existed disputes between the family of Nunna Satyanarayana and their family. On 10.11.2019, the accused have trespassed into their agricultural land and abused them in filthy language in the name of caste and threatened them to leave the land, otherwise they would see their end. When the de facto complainant and her husband tried to resist them, they have beaten the de facto complainant and her husband. Thus, a case is registered for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act against the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the recitals of the charge sheet itself disclose that the de facto complainant had no title at all and that her case is false. He pointed out that it is mentioned in the charge sheet that on 10.11.2019 as per the advice of the advocate i.e. after obtaining the legal opinion, the husband of the de facto complainant ploughed the subject land, which itself shows that they were not in possession of the land and it is only after obtaining the legal opinion that they went into the land. Thus, it falsifies the contentions of the de facto complainant that they are the owners and possessors of the said agricultural land. The complaint is filed with all false allegations and that the petitioner has pattedar passbook and mutation certificate in his favour and that the registered sale deed, under which the petitioner herein, who is accused No.3, has purchased the land from Nunna Satyanarayana, is also filed along with the petition. Thus, the petitioner herein is the owner of the subject land and the present case is instituted with a malicious intention and hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant has submitted that there are several disputed questions of fact to be decided by the trial court. He further submitted that this Court cannot decide the title of the parties over the subject property and that when there is a dispute with regard to title, they cannot take law into their hands and cannot trespass into the subject land belonging to the de facto complainant. He further argued that while the accused are trespassing into the subject land, the neighbouring people have witnessed the same and that the prosecution can prove the said offence against the petitioner herein and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The allegations prima faci