Dismissed

Mohd Mohsin Khan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2022CRLP/1365/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings involving trespass and property damage allegations. The court held that ownership disputes are triable facts for the trial court and cannot be adjudicated by the High Court at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Mohd Mohsin Khan Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

:-..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1365 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd ft4ohsin Khan, S/o. l/ohammed Naseeb Khan, aged 52 years, Occ Business R/o. H. No.1-8-506/55/A1, Prakash Nagar,Begumpet, Secu nderabad,T.S

¶9

lt/ohd Akbar, S/o. Mohd., Yousuf aged 35 years, Occ PVt., Job Fyo. H.No.B-522215, Hashmathpet, Sai Krishna Colony, Old Bownpally, Secunderabad,T.S

¶10

...Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through P.S Begumpet, TS

¶13

...Respondent N o.1/Com p lain ant

¶14

Sri. Pulla Amresh Kumar, S/o. Late Pulla Venkatesh, aged 68 years, Occ Contractor Fl/o. H No.1-10-27135111 and 12 part in Sy., No.1B8, Allamthota Bavi, Mayur marg, Begumpet, Secunderabad, TS,

¶15

...Respondent No.2/ De-facto Complainant

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C C No. 1597 of 2019 (Crime No. 61 of 2019, daled.l2-02-20'19 of PS Begumpet, T.S) pending on the file of the learned Xl Addl. Chief l/etropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad, T.S, and quash the same against the petitioners/ accused No.1 and 2

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/ accused No.'l & 2 in C C No. 1597 of 2019 (Crime No. 61 of 2019, datedJ2-02-2019 of PS Begumpet, T.S) pending on the file of the learned Xl Addl. Chief lt4etropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad, T.S pending disposal of the above criminal petition

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Crin inal Petition and upon hearing the ar(luments of Sri BETHI VENKATESWARi.U, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri CH. SRINIVAS, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made lhe following: ORDER

¶21

Crl. Petition No.1365 of 2021

¶22

¶23

I I

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.1355 OF 2O2L

¶26

ORD ER:

¶27

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners-Accused Nos.1 & 2 for quashment of the proceedings against them in CC.No.1597 of 2019 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan [4agistrate, Secunderabad. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 447,427 and 506 of IPC.

¶28

Heard both sides.

¶29

The case of the defacto complainant is that the petitioners have trespassed into his property which'is a house br.No.1-1027135111 & 12 part in Sy.No.1BB, Allamthota Bhavi, Mayuri Marg, Begumpet and demolished his property worth Rs.2 to 3 lacs.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed sale deed and also registered GPA vide document NO.2270 of 2018 that these petitioners have purchased the part of the^property and also hold AGPA in^part of the^property. The counsel argues

¶31

Crl.Peti'io r No 1365 of 2021

that there is a claim made by the defacto complain;rrr: that he has purchased lhe property from one Zainuddin Kibla in the year 19BB but n) document is filed. As^per the: allerl:tions in the complaint r 1ade, the defacto complainant clainr; l.hat this petitioners lave trespassed into the .property and caused destruction of^property to an extent of Rs. 2 to 3 lacs. Whether these petitiorers are the owners of the said land anJ whr:ther the defacto complainant is part of the said house l!urnbr:r ar€,all facts which have .o be decided by trial Court ancl this^(-lurt cannot embark on a ry enquiry to consider the rights of the ;;ersons who are residing in the said premises. For the said reasonr; all the defense takt n by the petitioner can be agitaterl belore the concerned Cc u rt.

¶36

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off

¶37

Miscelli neous applications pending, if any, r;hail stand

¶38

closed

¶39

3d/.N.SRIHARI AS;SI S]'ANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' l; \ -<iECTION^OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

1 . The XI^{Additic nal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate'Secundt:rabarl'}

¶42

The Station^{H ruseOtticer, eegumpet PJlice Station'HyclerabtrdDistrict'} 5. f*" CEt-t.^{tl e Publicerosecitor,'HighCourt for the State:of -Ielanganaat} Hyderabad.(C^UT)

¶43

a. oi .-cC t"^{brrt. bErHtVENKATESWARLU'AdvocateoPu(ll} ;. o;; cc^{to SF:1. cH. sRlNlvAS,Advocate [oPUC]}

¶44

Two^{CD CoPi'rs}

KAM A$x

HIGH COUR

DATED:1 511',,-12022

{-: =<br>c o
ll: ,'is
I
{)) 21 rlll ?$11 I
<br>)
L'c:ot ciCj :1 ,
,--"r,-a-;Z'

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CRLP.No.13t.5 of 2021

¶51

DISPOSING OF 1I{E CRINIINAI, PE.UTION.

¶52

A\J>

Mohd Mohsin Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Mohsin Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Selvi Vs State of Telangana

Srinivas Membi Vs The State of Telangana

M/S Maruthi College of Engineering and Technology, and Another, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Smt.Yadavalli Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Csk Realtors Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Jatothu Naresh Kumar and 10 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another