Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 96 (TS)

B. Ravinder Reddy v. S. Vishwanatha Raju

2021-04-01

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2021
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 175 of 2021 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The petitioners are accused Nos. 5 and 6. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 420, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. As per the complaint, the allegations are as follows: (a) One Jagannadh Reddy is the pattedar of land admeasuring Ac. 33-00 guntas in Survey No. 885 (old) 696 (new), situated at Janwada Village of Shankarpally Mandal. The said Jagannadh Reddy has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr. Ramchandra Singh in respect of the said land of Ac. 33-00 guntas. The said Ramchandra Singh, by virtue of the said General Power of Attorney sold land admeasuring Ac. 4-00 guntas, out of Ac. 33-00 guntas, under a Registered Document bearing No. 15038/1990 to the 1st respondent/complainant. After purchase of the said land, the 1st respondent/complainant has constructed a room in the year 1998 in the said land and used to visit the said land frequently and used to do agricultural activities in the said land. The said Ramchandra Singh sold land admeasuring Ac. 4-00 guntas, in the remaining land, to one S. Shankar through a Registered Document bearing No. 3336 of 1991. In the year 2015, the said Shankar gave the said Ac. 4-00 guntas of land to the 1st respondent/complainant through unregistered working General Power of Attorney. (b) Accused persons by name Dilip Reddy, Pradeep Reddy, N. Krishna Kumari and Kiran Reddy, legal heirs of the said pattedar Jagannadh Reddy, upon knowing that their father has executed General Power Attorney to Ramchandra Singh vide Document bearing No. 2546 of 1990, with a deceitful intention, after the death of their father Jagannadh Reddy, claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of the said Ac. 33-00 guntas of land, made double registration through Agreement-cum-Sale and General Power of Attorney vide Document bearing No. 6242 of 2005 to Sriven Construction Company and cheated the 1st respondent/complainant. The said Sriven Construction Company, in the year 2007, sold the said land to one Ravinder Reddy i.e., the 1st petitioner/accused No. 5. 33-00 guntas of land, made double registration through Agreement-cum-Sale and General Power of Attorney vide Document bearing No. 6242 of 2005 to Sriven Construction Company and cheated the 1st respondent/complainant. The said Sriven Construction Company, in the year 2007, sold the said land to one Ravinder Reddy i.e., the 1st petitioner/accused No. 5. Accused including the 1st petitioner are residents of Kollur Village, Medak District, and his Manager, Bhaskar Reddy (wrongly mentioned as Bhaskar Rao) the 2nd petitioner/accused No. 6 along with their henchmen are trying to encroach the 1st respondent's land from the year 2018 and threatened him on several occasions to vacate his land and also damaged the iron walls in the land in the year 2007. The Collectors of Ranga Reddy District and Medak District, have conducted a survey to decide the jurisdiction and demarcation of their respective Districts. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in his proceedings dated 05.02.2007, stated that the said land is in the topography of Ranga Reddy District. The Collector also gave No Objection Certificate to the 1st respondent. (c) It is further alleged that on 20.02.2021 at about 18:30 hours, while the 1st respondent was in the said land, as per the instructions of the 1st petitioner/accused No. 5, his Manager, the 2nd petitioner/accused No. 6, have criminally trespassed into the said land belonging to the 1st respondent/complainant along with JCB vehicle without number plate, driven by one Nagani Srikanth and Tractor bearing No. TS-07-UJ-0915 driven by one C. Vikram Reddy, threatened the 1st respondent/complainant with dire consequences and they have made the complainant to vacate the land and further, they have demolished the room in the land and taken away the agricultural tools. The complainant came back to his land and noticed the damage caused to his land and lodged the present complaint. (d) On receipt of said complaint, dated 21.02.2021, the police, Narsingi registered a case in Crime No. 175 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein and other accused. (e) During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statements of 1st respondent as L.W.1, statement of one P. Linga Nayak as L.W.2 and statement of Irfan Khan as L.W.3. They have also arrested the 2nd petitioner/accused No. 6, who was enlarged on bail thereafter. 3. (e) During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statements of 1st respondent as L.W.1, statement of one P. Linga Nayak as L.W.2 and statement of Irfan Khan as L.W.3. They have also arrested the 2nd petitioner/accused No. 6, who was enlarged on bail thereafter. 3. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner, partner of M/s. One and Cadol Developers, has entered into a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney with Smt. Satwant Kaur W/o Sri Balvinder Singh, for development of said land admeasuring Ac. 8-00 guntas, out of total land admeasuring Ac. 12-07 guntas, forming part of Survey Nos. 273 and 274 situated at Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, on the terms and conditions specifically mentioned therein. They have also obtained permission from HMDA vide proceedings, dated 02.02.2021. Pursuant to the said permission, the said Firm is proceeding with development of the said land. 3(i). Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that when the 1st respondent and another is trying to interfere with possession of land of Smt. Satwant Kaur, who is owner and M/s. One and Cadol Developers, developers of the said land, they have filed a suit in O.S. No. 656 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak District at Sangareddy, against the 1st respondent and others for Perpetual Injunction. In the said suit, the 1st respondent herein has entered his appearance and filed I.A. No. 2478 of 2019 in O.S. No. 656 of 2019 seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The said application was dismissed vide, order, dated 20.01.2020. By referring to the said order, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the 1st respondent knowingly suppressed the fact of pendency of aforesaid suit and also the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the application filed by him seeking rejection of the plaint. 3(ii). Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that when there was a dispute with regard to the overlapping of survey numbers of two villages i.e., Janwada and Kollur, a joint survey was conducted and proceedings, dated 04.04.2019, were issued. As per the said proceedings, land in Survey Nos. 273/AA, 274/A1/1, 274/A2/2 admeasuring Ac. 3(ii). Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that when there was a dispute with regard to the overlapping of survey numbers of two villages i.e., Janwada and Kollur, a joint survey was conducted and proceedings, dated 04.04.2019, were issued. As per the said proceedings, land in Survey Nos. 273/AA, 274/A1/1, 274/A2/2 admeasuring Ac. 8-00 guntas, is falling in Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. Basing on the said report only, the HMDA granted approval to the said Firm on 02.02.2021. Even then, the 1st respondent with a mala fide intention, during pendency of the said suit, lodged the present complaint implicating the petitioners herein in a false case, and thus, the 1st respondent is trying to criminalize the civil proceedings. According to learned Senior Counsel, the 1st respondent, instead of waiting for result of the said suit, has lodged the present complaint with a mala fide intention. There are contradictions in the complaint and also in the remand report. With the said contentions, learned Senior Counsel sought to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 175 of 2021 pending on the file of Narsingi Police Station against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/complainant would submit that the 1st respondent is owner of land admeasuring Ac. 4-00 guntas in Survey No. 885 (old) 696 (new) and he has purchased the said land from one Ramchandra Singh in the year 1990 itself. The said Ramchandra Singh also sold land admeasuring Ac. 4-00 guntas, out of the remaining land, to one S.Shankar through Document bearing No. 3336 of 1991, there upon the 1st respondent acquired the said land from the said Shanker in the year 1991 through unregistered working General Power of Attorney. Thus, in all, the 1st respondent is owner of Ac. 8.00 guntas of land in Survey No. 696 (new) 885 (old). The petitioners herein and other accused, who are having money and muscle power, taking advantage of the age of the 1st respondent, are trying to encroach upon the said land. In the said course of action, they have trespassed into the land of the 1st respondent on 20.02.2021, damaged the room and threatened the 1st respondent to vacate the said land. They have also taken away the agricultural related tools. In the said course of action, they have trespassed into the land of the 1st respondent on 20.02.2021, damaged the room and threatened the 1st respondent to vacate the said land. They have also taken away the agricultural related tools. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant, there are specific allegations in the complaint, which is at investigation stage, the proceedings in Crime No. 175/2021 many not be quashed at the initial stage. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the 1st respondent sought to dismiss the present petition. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the police, on receipt of complaint from the 1st respondent, since the contents of the complaint constitute cognizable offence, registered a case in Crime No. 175 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and other accused. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statement of three witnesses. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation is pending and the petitioners are not cooperating with the Investigating Officer in investigation of the case. Petitioner No. 2/accused No. 6 was arrested and he was enlarged on bail. With the said submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present application. 6. The above stated rival submissions would reveal that the 1st petitioner is claiming to be the partner of M/s. One and Cadol Developers. As per the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney executed vide Document bearing No. 18975 of 2018, dated 21.05.2018, the 1st petitioner has taken the land admeasuring Ac. 8-00 guntas in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 situated at Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, from its owner Smt. Satwant Kaur for development. The owner of the land and Firm have also obtained permission from HMDA vide proceedings, dated 02.02.2021. It is also not in dispute that when there was dispute with regard to overlapping of survey numbers, a joint survey was conducted and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division, has issued proceedings, dated 04.04.2019, stating that the land in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 admeasuring Ac. 8-00 guntas is falling in Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. 7. It is also not in dispute that when there was dispute with regard to overlapping of survey numbers, a joint survey was conducted and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division, has issued proceedings, dated 04.04.2019, stating that the land in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 admeasuring Ac. 8-00 guntas is falling in Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. 7. It is relevant to note that the said Smt. Satwant Kaur, owner, M/s. One and Cadol Developers, developers of the said land, have filed suit in O.S. No. 656 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, for Perpetual Injunction against the 1st respondent and others. The 1st respondent has entered his appearance, filed Written Statement and also filed Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No. 2478 of 209 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint. The same was dismissed by the Court below vide order, dated 20.01.2020. The 1st respondent has suppressed the said facts in his complaint, dated 20.02.2021. There is no explanation, much less plausible explanation from the 1st respondent for suppression of relevant information in the complaint. 8. Admittedly, the suit in O.S. No. 656 of 2019 filed by the owner and the developers against the 1st respondent and others is pending. In the order, dated 20.01.2020, in I.A. No. 2478 of 2019 in O.S. No. 656 of 2019 filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint, the Court below gave a specific finding that the lands in Kollur Village and the lands in Janwada Village are side by side and Survey No. 297 of Kollur Village was overlapped with the lands in Janwada village. The proceedings of the District Collector does not show whether the suit schedule property in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 are overlapping with the lands in Janwada Village. In such circumstances, the Court below, by relying upon the documents filed by the plaintiffs at the time of institution of suit, which discloses that the suit schedule property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, dismissed the said application. Though the 1st respondent has suffered the said order, failed to mention about the same and also pendency of the suit in the complaint. Thus, there is suppression of material facts by the 1st respondent/complainant in the complaint, dated 20.02.2021. 9. Though the 1st respondent has suffered the said order, failed to mention about the same and also pendency of the suit in the complaint. Thus, there is suppression of material facts by the 1st respondent/complainant in the complaint, dated 20.02.2021. 9. In the complaint itself, the 1st respondent has specifically mentioned that in the year 2007, the Collectors of both Ranga Reddy District and Medak District have conducted survey to decide the jurisdiction and demarcation of the respective Districts and the then District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings, dated 05.02.2007, has stated that the said land is in topography of the Ranga Reddy District and also gave No Objection Certificate to 1st respondent. Having stated so, the 1st respondent suppressed about the pendency of aforesaid suit in the complaint and also filing of application under Order VII Rule 11 CP.C., seeking rejection of the plaint in the said suit. 10. The only allegation against the 1st petitioner is that as per his instructions, the 2nd petitioner/accused No. 6 and other accused have criminally trespassed into the land of respondent No. 1 along with JCB vehicle. Except that allegation, there is no other allegation against the 1st petitioner. There is no allegation against the 1st petitioner herein that he has intention to kill the 1st respondent. There is also no allegation against the 2nd petitioner/A6 that he had intention to kill the 1st respondent and accordingly attempted to kill him. The only allegation against the 2nd petitioner/A6 is that he has trespassed into the said land. 11. As stated above, admittedly, the suit in O.S. No. 656 of 2019 is pending between the parties. The 1st respondent, instead of waiting for the result of the said suit, lodged the present complaint with an allegation that the 1st petitioner is trying to encroach into his land and in the said course of action, as per the instructions of the 1st petitioner, the other accused have trespassed into his land. Thus, admittedly, civil disputes are pending between the parties. 12. Section 420 I.P.C. deals with punishment for cheating. As per which, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Section 420 I.P.C. deals with punishment for cheating. As per which, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Whereas, in the present case, there is no allegation of inducement more particularly, dishonest inducement against the petitioners herein by the 1st respondent in the complaint, dated 20.02.2021. Thus, the contents of complaint lack the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. 13. Section 441 I.P.C. deals with criminal trespass. As per which, whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such or with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence. 14. Section 447 I.P.C. deals with punishment for criminal trespass. Section 427 I.P.C. deals with punishment of Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees. 15. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that there is no allegation, much less specific allegation against the 1st petitioner/accused No. 5 that he criminally trespassed into the land of the 1st respondent. As per the contents of the complaint, dated 20.02.2021, as per the instructions of 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner and other accused have trespassed into the land of the 1st respondent. As stated above, the possession of the 1st respondent over the land claimed by the 1st petitioner itself is in dispute. Smt. Satwant Kaur is claiming that she is owner of land admeasuring Ac. 8-00 guntas in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 of Kollur Village and M/s. One and Cadol Developers, represented by the 1st petitioner, partner of the said firm, is claiming that it is a registered development holder-cum-General Power of Attorney in respect of the said land. They have also filed proceedings, dated 02.02.2021 issued by the HMDA. Vide proceedings, dated 04.04.2019, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District, specifically mentioned that the land in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 is falling in Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. They have also filed proceedings, dated 02.02.2021 issued by the HMDA. Vide proceedings, dated 04.04.2019, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy District, specifically mentioned that the land in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 is falling in Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District. Thus, the possession of the 1st respondent over the said land itself is in dispute. Admittedly, the suit in O.S. No. 656 of 2019 is pending. Interlocutory Application filed by the 1st respondent seeking to reject the plaint, was dismissed by the Court below specifically referring to the proceedings issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the lands in Kollur Village and the lands in Janwada Village are side by side. The land in Survey No. 279 of Kollur Village is overlapping with the land in Janwada Village. The proceedings of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, does not show whether the suit schedule property i.e., land in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 are overlapping with the lands of Janwada Village. Thus, from the said finding, the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the 1st respondent seeking to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 659 of 2019. Admittedly, the said suit is pending. The 1st petitioner suppressed the said facts in his complaint, dated 20.02.2021. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Sardar Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 12 SCC 51 has categorically held that when Civil Court ceased of the very same issue, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue without any criminal element, would be nothing but abuse of process of law and the proceedings in the said crime are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited (2006) 6 SCC 736 , the Apex Court held that "while on the issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramajeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 , held that when a dispute essentially of a civil nature is given the cloak of criminal offence and if a civil remedy is available, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court. 19. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 20. This Court vide order, dated 18.01.2021, in Crl.P. No. 3276 of 2020 by referring to the pendency of three applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, wherein adjudication was sought with regard to the interpretation of conditions of LLP Agreement and violation, thereby held that the proceedings in the said crime are liable to the quashed and the Investigating Officer is not having power to proceed with the said issue by invoking the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the Court does not permit the Investigating Officer to do so. 21. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the Judgments cited supra, coming to the facts on hand, as discussed supra, admittedly, the suit in O.S. No. 659 of 2019 is pending. The 1st petitioner and owner are claiming that the land admeasuring Ac. 8-00 guntas is situated in Survey Nos. 273 and 274 of Kollur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, whereas the 1st respondent is claiming that the said land is situated in Survey No. 855 (old) 696 (new) of Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 22. The 1st respondent is relying upon the proceedings, dated 05.02.2007 issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, whereas the 1st petitioner is relying upon the proceedings, dated 04.04.2019 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy District. Both the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent are claiming that there was dispute with regard to overlapping of lands in the said two villages i.e., Kollur and Janwada. Both the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent are claiming that there was dispute with regard to overlapping of lands in the said two villages i.e., Kollur and Janwada. The said dispute was resolved by way of conducting joint survey by both District Collectors i.e., Sangareddy District and Ranga Reddy District. However, the said matter is subject matter of suit in O.S. No. 659 of 2019. The 1st respondent cannot expect a finding or adjudication of the said issue, which is civil in nature, which involves complicated questions of fact by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 175 of 2021. The Investigating Officer under the Code is not having power to decide such complicated questions of fact, which the jurisdictional competent civil Court alone can decide. 23. Admittedly, in the present case, the suit in O.S. No. 659 of 2019 is pending and the Civil Court ceased the very same issue. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue, without there being any criminal element, is not permissible and it amounts to abuse of process of law. 24. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to note that the 1st respondent has suppressed the fact of pendency of aforesaid suit and filing of Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, which was dismissed by the Court below and it is a contest order. As discussed above, the only allegation in the complaint is that on the instructions of the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner trespassed into the subject land. As discussed above, the possession of the 1st petitioner over the subject land is in dispute and the above said suit is pending. The contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the Section 420 IPC. There is no inducement of the 1st respondent by the petitioners. Even then, Narsingi Police Station has registered the above said crime for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Thus, according to this Court, the proceedings in Crime No. 175 of 2021 against the petitioners herein cannot be continued. This Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 175 of 2021 pending on the file of Narsingi police station against the petitioners by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 25. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 175 of 2021 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, against the present petitioners/accused Nos. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 175 of 2021 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, against the present petitioners/accused Nos. 5 and 6 only. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.