Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 770 (TS)

Uppala Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana

2025-06-09

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : K. SUJANA, J. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.9691 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 430, 503, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that that he and his sisters are the sole owners of the Dr. Yadgiri Complex, and the petitioners are trying to take advantage of his old age to grab his property. The petitioners have allegedly captured the shops and flats of the de facto complainant, collected rent from tenants without his knowledge since 2010, and regularly trespassed into his property, causing trouble. Specific incidents include stopping the lift service on August 17, 2022, and disconnecting the water supply on April 2, 2023. The petitioners have also used vulgar language, abused, and threatened the complainant and his family, putting their safety at risk. 3. Heard Sri S.A. Razack, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - defacto complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant and the petitioners are family members, with the petitioners being the rightful owners and in possession of the Dr. Yadgiri complex. The complainant has occupied flat Nos.402 and 501 without paying maintenance charges for several years, despite repeated requests and notices. Consequently, the petitioners were compelled to stop the lift service and water supply to the said flats, which is a legitimate action in accordance with the Telangana Apartments Act. He further submitted that the present complaint is a blatant attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case, with the complainant having filed several suits and complaints earlier on similar facts, which were either dismissed or pending adjudication. This pattern of behavior indicates a clear abuse of process of law, aimed at harassing and pressurizing the accused. 5. He further submitted that the present complaint is a blatant attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case, with the complainant having filed several suits and complaints earlier on similar facts, which were either dismissed or pending adjudication. This pattern of behavior indicates a clear abuse of process of law, aimed at harassing and pressurizing the accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 430 of IPC is not applicable in this case, as Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments Act empowers the manager or board of managers to cutoff essential supplies in case of non- payment of maintenance charges. The allegations made in the complaint are false, fabricated, and concocted, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the claim of the ownership and possession of the petitioners of the entire complex is entirely false and baseless, lacking any credible evidence. The respondent and his sisters are the absolute owners of the portion of the property gifted by late Smt. B.Indira Devi through registered gift deeds, and the petitioners have no legitimate right or interest over it. The actions of the petitioners, including stopping the lift service and water supply to the respondent's premises, constitute a clear offence and an attempt to interfere with the respondent's legitimate use of his property. The criminal case has been properly filed, and the respondent has a strong prima facie case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the contentions of the petitioners are nothing but a bundle of falsehoods, devoid of any documentary evidence to support their claims. The attempt of the petitioners to fabricate a dispute and create a defense is a clear abuse of the legal process. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 7. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the alleged offences against the petitioners are under Sections 430, 503, 504, and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 7. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the alleged offences against the petitioners are under Sections 430, 503, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The allegation is that the petitioners, who are not connected in any manner with Flat No.402, have wrongfully interfered with the amenities of Flat Nos.402 and 501, of which the de facto complainants claim ownership. 8. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they stopped the lift services and water supply to Flats 402 and 501. The petitioners have admitted to this act, justifying it on the ground that respondent No. 2 has failed to pay the maintenance charges. On the other hand, the complainant contends that, as the owner of the entire complex, he is not liable to pay any maintenance charges to the petitioners. He further asserts that the building in which the petitioners own flats is separate and unconnected with his own complex. 9. A reading of the complaint reveals that the de facto complainants reside in Flats 402 and 501, whereas the petitioners are owners of flats on the first and second floors, which clearly shows that the petitioners are not the sole owners of the entire complex. It is also pertinent to note that the present proceedings are not intended to adjudicate the ownership of the property. 10. The dispute essentially revolves around the stoppage of lift services and water supply. The petitioners claim to be managing the maintenance of the premises and assert that the complainants have defaulted in paying their share. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed documents showing that they paid maintenance charges for the entire building up to 2024. In contrast, the counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed electricity bills allegedly covering the whole building. 11. Both parties have filed electricity bills. However, the bills filed by the petitioners clearly pertain to common services, while those filed by respondent No. 2 do not reflect the same. The core dispute is thus regarding payment of maintenance and utility charges. In contrast, the counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed electricity bills allegedly covering the whole building. 11. Both parties have filed electricity bills. However, the bills filed by the petitioners clearly pertain to common services, while those filed by respondent No. 2 do not reflect the same. The core dispute is thus regarding payment of maintenance and utility charges. The documents filed by the petitioners demonstrate that they have paid the common service charges, and in such a scenario, as per Section 21 of the Apartments Act, any person who incurs such expenses is entitled to recover the same from the flat owners. Moreover, if such dues remain unpaid, they may withhold services like water supply and lift operation to the concerned flats. 12. Therefore, the registration of a criminal case against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences appears to be a misuse of the legal process. Both parties have also conceded that title disputes are pending before the competent civil Court. Ownership rights and related issues must be determined by the civil Court, and such civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal proceedings. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners constitutes an abuse of process of law, and the same are liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.9691 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.