Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 7 (TS)

Mellacheruvu Aruna Kumari v. State of Telangana

2026-01-05

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2026
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.803 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Brief Facts of the case: 2.1. Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant filed a complaint wherein it is stated that he has Ac.4.05 cents of agricultural land in Survey No.349/A/1, situated within the limits of Raghunadhapalem revenue village; on 08.02.2019, in the morning hours at about 9:00 A.M., Mellacheruvu Aruna Kumari W/o Venkatramaiah and Miriyala Radhalatha, the petitioners herein, along with some others, came to his land and damaged the flake shed which was arranged for buffaloes. At that time, watchman Boda Venkati tried to stop them, but they threatened to kill him, and the same was informed to him by the watchman. This land dispute was pending in S.A. No.1273/2017 and I.A. No.2 of 2018 in W.P. No.46288 of 2018. Even then, the above-said two persons, along with some others, stated that the land belonged to them and trespassed into the land and damaged the flake shed. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the petitioners as per law. After perusal of the docket proceedings, it reveals that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 02.12.2022 learned counsel for the petitioner sent personal notice to the respondent No.2 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due and filed proof of service vide USR No.122048/2022 dated 29.12.2022. In spite of service of notice the respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 3. Heard Mr.A.Rohan, learned counsel representing Mr.Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel For Petitioners: 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and that they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and that they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners have purchased the property through a registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration from Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah and that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers. 4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 and others are trying to interfere with the subject property. The vendors of the petitioners, namely Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant had filed two suits, namely O.S.No.408 of 2005 and O.S.No.309 of 2005, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, seeking perpetual injunction restraining interference with the suit schedule property, and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, by a common judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008, dismissed both the suits filed by Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah in O.S.No.408 of 2005 and O.S.No.309 of 2005. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree, the petitioner’s vendor, namely Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, filed two independent appeals, namely A.S.No.93 of 2008 and A.S.No.94 of 2008, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, and the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, by judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017, allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, decreed the suit filed by Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, and dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.2. 4.3. He further submitted that aggrieved by the above said common judgment, respondent No.2 approached this Court and filed S.A.No.88 of 2018 against A.S.No.93 of 2008 and S.A.No.1273 of 2017 against A.S. No.94 of 2008. Both the Second Appeals were abated. The Second Appeals have not yet been admitted, and this Court has not granted any injunction in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint in respect of the very same scheduled property, alleging that the petitioners have trespassed into the said property. However, the judgment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, in O.S.No.408 of 2005 is subsisting, and therefore the question of trespass into the suit schedule property by the petitioners does not arise. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint in respect of the very same scheduled property, alleging that the petitioners have trespassed into the said property. However, the judgment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, in O.S.No.408 of 2005 is subsisting, and therefore the question of trespass into the suit schedule property by the petitioners does not arise. The nature of the allegations made is in respect of the very same property covered under O.S.No.408 of 2005, which is pending to settle the civil disputes between the parties. Respondent No.2 filed the complaint by implicating the petitioners and by giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. 5. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor: 5.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not, the same has to be revealed after full-fledged trial before the trial Court. The contentions and grounds raised by the learned counsel for petitioners are disputed questions of facts and the same cannot be adjudicated while under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. ANALYSIS: 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioners are claiming rights based upon the registered sale deeds vide Document Nos.5667 and 5668 of 2005 dated 13.06.2005, executed by Maddineni Venkata Narasaiah. The record further reveals that the petitioners’ vendor, namely Maddineni Venkata Narasaiah, had filed O.S.No.408 of 2005 against Respondent No.2 and others, for grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the very same schedule property as mentioned in the present proceedings. Similarly respondent No.2 also filed suit O.S.No.309 of 2005 for grant of perpetual injunction against Maddineni Venkata Narasaiah, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam by way of common judgment dismissed the suit O.S.No.408 if 2005 and decreed the suit O.S.No.309 of 2005 on 25.08.2008. The record further reveals that aggrieved by the above said common judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008, the petitioner’s vendor namely Maddineni Venkata Narasaiah, had filed two appeals namely A.S.No.93 of 2008 and 94 of 2008 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Khammam. The record further reveals that aggrieved by the above said common judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008, the petitioner’s vendor namely Maddineni Venkata Narasaiah, had filed two appeals namely A.S.No.93 of 2008 and 94 of 2008 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Khammam. The learned Principal District Judge, Khammam allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in O.S.No.309 of 2005 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.408 of 2005 filed by the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 filed two second appeals namely S.A.No.88 of 2018 and 1273 of 2017 before this Court and the same have not been admitted and no interim order were granted in favour of respondent No.2. The decree of injunction granted in favour of petitioner’s vendor is continuing. 7. The record further reveals that subsequent to the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, in A.S.No.93 of 2008 respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 09.02.2019 against the petitioners especially the petitioners are claiming rights over the property from Maddineni Venkata Narasaiah, who alienated the same by executing registered sale deeds. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the nature of the allegations are purely civil in nature and the ingredients for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. 8. It is relevant to mention that in R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telangana , (2023) 2 SCC 195 the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court must act cautiously and sparingly, using it only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court observed that although certain civil disputes may appear to have a criminal flavour, the High Court must determine whether the complaint genuinely discloses the ingredients of a criminal offence or merely gives a civil dispute the colour of criminality. If the dispute is essentially civil in nature and civil remedies are already being pursued, the criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent misuse of the court’s process. Applying this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. 1029 of 2015. If the dispute is essentially civil in nature and civil remedies are already being pursued, the criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent misuse of the court’s process. Applying this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. 1029 of 2015. However, it clarified that if the civil court later finds the disputed sale deed to be forged, fresh criminal proceedings may be initiated. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the genuineness of the sale deed, leaving that issue entirely for the civil court to decide on the basis of evidence and expert opinion. 9. It is also relevant to mention that in Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal and another , (2023) 15 SCC 135 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the respondent had suppressed the fact of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants, which directly related to the same dispute forming the basis of his criminal allegations. Such non-disclosure amounted to concealment of a material fact. The Court further held that before ordering registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the complaint must disclose specific and clear allegations satisfying the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Vague or general accusations cannot justify a direction to investigate. On examining the complaint, the Court found that the allegations lacked the necessary elements to constitute the offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420, and 120-B IPC. There were no concrete assertions of causing hurt, criminal intimidation, dishonest inducement, or misappropriation. The dispute was essentially civil in nature, but the respondent had attempted to give it a criminal colour. Given that the civil suit on the same subject was already pending, the Court held that the respondent was misusing criminal proceedings as a tool of harassment against the appellants. Relying on Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand , (2013) 11 SCC 673 it concluded that the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal case to prevent abuse of process, as the respondent had already invoked civil remedies and concealed that fact. 10. Relying on Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand , (2013) 11 SCC 673 it concluded that the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal case to prevent abuse of process, as the respondent had already invoked civil remedies and concealed that fact. 10. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned Supra , this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.803 of 2021, on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, would amount to abuse of the process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.803 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case only. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.