Dismissed

Sri.K. Srinivasulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2024CRLP/10280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of two criminal petitions under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of police proceedings against accused in a land encroachment case. The Court found that specific averments for sections 316(5), 324(3), and 329(3) BNS were missing. It dismissed the petition to quash and directed that investigation proceed following Section 35(3) BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed; accused directed to appear before IO; IO directed to follow Section 35(3) BNSS and Arnesh Kumar guidelines for investigation.

Sri.K. Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

-t

¶2

I]IGH COURT FOR TFIE STA]E OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEEN'II-I DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

i,RESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMTIUSTICE K. SUIANA

¶7

Criminal Petition Nos.10280 and 10481 of 2024

¶8

Crl.P.No.10280 of 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri K. Srinivasulu, S/o. K. Jangaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, (Full Additional Charge), Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶11

...Petitioner/ Accused No.3.

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri A.V.Ranganath, Commissioner, Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Authority, Telangana State.

¶15

' ... Res pondents/ Compla ipa n ts.

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, Act, 2023 praying that ifl the' circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminai Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call {or the records to the proceedings in Crime No.4'L/2024, Dt.30.08.2024 on the file of P.S EOW, Cyberabad, Cyberabad Commissionerate for the offences U / s 59, 798, 207, 316(5), 329(3), 324(3), 49, 61(2) r/w.3(5) tsNS and to quash the same.

¶17

I.A. NO:2OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appeararrce of the petitioner in Crime No.47/ 2024, Dt.30.08.2024 on the file of P.S EOW, Cyberabad, Cyberabad Commissionerate for the offences U / s 59, 198,201.,316(5),329(3), 324(3), 49, 61(2) r/w.3(5) BNS, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing; upon perusing the Memorandum of Crounds ol Crirninal Petition and upon hear ing the arguments of Sri T.srikanth Reddy, Aclvocate for the Petitioner.and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

¶20

espondent No.1 and ol tl-re Respondent No.2 not appearing in person.or through his counsel

¶21

CrI.P.No.10481. of 2024

¶22

Between:

¶23

Sri Poolsingh, S/ o Sri Seva Naik, age. 47 years, Occ.Govt Employee, R/o Flat No. 207,Inlocity, Pramalatha Grandure, Annojiguda, Medchai-Malkjgiri District, TG. ...Petitioner/ Accused No.2.

¶24

AND

¶25

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶26

..Respondent.

¶27

Sri A.V Ranganath, Commissioner IPS Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Authority, Telangana, Office Addres s. 6-3-"121 6 / 45A, Monarick Building, Methodist Colony, Kundanbagh Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 500016. ... Respondent/ Defacto Complainant.

¶28

Petition under Section 528 oi BNSS, Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.41 of 2024, dated 30.08.2024 On the File of EOW Cyb (Cyberabad).

¶29

I.A. NO: 7 OF 2024

¶30

Petition under'Secti6n 528 bf BNSS, Act, 2023"'praying rhzft ii{ the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of F.I.R Crime No.4l oI 2024 datecl 30.08.2024 On the File of EOW Cyb(Cyberabad)

¶31

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶32

Petition under section 482 of C..P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the l{igh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest in Crime No.41 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024 On the File of EOW Cyb(Cyberabad) pendi,g disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶33

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimir-ral Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri r.srujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate for tl-re Petitioner and the Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or through his co u nsel.

¶34

The Court rnade the folloi,r.ing: COMMON OI(DER

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶36

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1O28O and 1O481 of2024

¶37

COMMON ORDER:

¶38

Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

¶39

These Criminal Petitions are fi1ed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, respectively, in Crime No.41 of 2024 of Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 59, 198, 201, 316(5), 329 (3), 49,61(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS).

¶40

The brief facts of the cases are that respondent No.2 i.e., A.V. Rangnath, Commissioner of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Authority, Telangana (hereinafter referred as 'HYDRAA'), Iodged a complaint against the petitioners and other accused stating that they encouraged and made illegal constructions in Sy.No.134,

¶41

¶42

srs,J CrLP.Nos.lO28O & lo4al oJ 2024

¶43

Buffer Zone of Errakunta Pond, Pragathi Nagar (ID 28OO / e / 17), under Nizampet municipality jurisdiction. It is further stated that a detailed report was submitted by the HYDRAA regarding the said illegal constructions in the above mentioned survey number and found that there were signihcant violations.

¶44

As per the findings of HYDRAA, the extent of Errakunta Pond is admeasuring Ac.3.O33 guntas. The reports from the Executive Engineer, I&CADD, and the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records confirrn that the land in question is a Government property and that the investigation done by the .: HYD RAA reveals that the permissions were granted based on incorrect geo-co ordinates, that placed the said constructions 75 meters away from the actual location of the pond. It is alleged that the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records did not provide adequate documentation for the investigation and was partial to the encroachers by altering the geo co-ordinates. It is further alleged that the subject matter was brought to this Court by way of filing a petition ald the same was allowed permitting to proceed with the construction subject to the condition that it would not

¶45

¶46

SI(S,J CrLP.Nos.lOz8O & 1O4A1 of 2024

¶47

interfere with the identification of FTL/Buffer^{Zoneand by} following due process

¶48

It is the specific allegation that the Municipai Commissioner of Nizampet Municipality^{issuedbuilding} permissions without proper procedure and^failed to act^on timely reminders issued by the^{Metropolitan Commissioner,} HMDA, insisting to revoke the^{permissions gralted' [n the set} of said circumstances, on^15.Oa.2O24 the^HYDRAA demolished the illegal constructions.^{Basing on the said} complaint, the Police registered a^{case in Crime No.41 of 2024} for the offenc_es pgnishable under^{Sections 59, I98, 2Ol,} 316(5), 329 (3, 49, 6l(21 read^{with.3(5)of BNS. Aggrievedby} the same, the criminal^{petitionNo.10481of 2O24 was fi1ed by} accused No.2 and Cr.P.No.10280^{of 2024 was filedby accused} No.3

¶49

Heard Sri T. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel^appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ accused^No.3 in^{Crl.P.No'1O28Oof} 2O24 as weil as Sri T. Srujan^{Kumar Reddy, learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner/accusedNo.2 in} Crl.P.No. 1048 I of 2024 and Sri^{M. Ramachander Reddy,}

¶50

¶51

¶52

srs,J CrLP-Nos.1O2aO & 1O4a1 of 2024

¶53

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petiLioner/accused No.2 submitted that when petitioner/accused No.2 has joined as MRO, Bachupally Mandal in the month of August 2023, the frrst building permission was already granted in favour of Sri Venkatesh by HMDA on 19.06.2020, vide application No.O2927 3 / MED/R 1 / U6l HMD A I 17 1O2O 19 for construction of 1 Stilt + 5 upper floors to an extent of 606.72 square meters in Plot Nos. 1191, 1192, 1993 situated in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Bachup,ally Municipal Corporation, Thereafter, when the petitioner/ accused No.2 has assumed his office, on 13.O9 .2023 the building permissions related to second building u'ere granted to MTs.MAPS INFRA, vide application Nos.O0837o/BP/HMDAI 1831/MED/ 2023 and OO837tlBP/HMDAI 1832|MEDl2023 by the Nizampet Municipal Corporation for construction of I stilt + 5 upper floors to an extent of 498.37 square meters in Plot Nos. 1189p, 1 19O, 1 i 9 I , 1 192P situated in Sy. Nos.48 and 49 of Bachupally Municipal Corporation and for construction of 1 stilt⁺ 5 upper floors to an extenl of 394.64 square meters in

¶55

¶56

srs,J CrLP.Nos.lO2gO & 10481 oj 2024

¶57

Plot No. I 192 PART situated in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Bachupally Municipal Corporation, respectively. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.2 submitted that on receipt of first application made by the developer vide application dated 14.09 .2023 seeking to provide revenue sketch with regard to plot Nos. 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192 and 1193, the Mandal Surveyor, Bachupally conducted survey in Sy.No.49 for demarcating the plots by sketch map No.ElaO9/2O23 and the same was attested by the petitioner/ accused No.2. Thereafter, an Article was published in the local newspaper stating that mishap was played in demarcating the plots, surround, Errakunta Pond. On such publication, the petitioner/accused No.2 has taken action and directed the Mandal Giridhavar, Bachupaily Mandal to take immediate action against the illegal, encroachers in Sy.No.134 situated at Errakunta Pond and further directed to demarcate the Survey numbers in FIL/ Buffer Z,one and also to stop further encroachment into the subject lands. The Mandal Giridhavar submitted his report dated Oa.Ol.2O24 along with^photographs depicting the action taken against the alleged^{illegal encroachers.}

¶58

<br>

¶59

¶60

srs,J CrLP-Nos.lO28O & 1O4a1 oJ 2024

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner/accused No.2 addressed letter dated IL.OL.2024 to RDO Malkajgiri Division and Assistant Director Survey arrd Land Records, Medchal Malkajgiri District, requesting them to demarcate land in Sy.no.134 of Bachupally Village and to reveriS the Government Land and to hx the boundaries. Thereafter, on 12.06.2024 the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medchal-Malkajgiri District addressed letter to the District Collector, Medchal-Matkajgiri stating that the Deputy inspector had conducted survey to an extent of Ac.O3;00 guntas in Sy.No:134 'arrd requested the District Collector to'direct the petitioner/ accused No.2 for fixing the fence in the subject land. He further submitted that on the directions of the District Collector, the petitioner/ accused No.2 addressed letter vide Lr.No.B/ 15/2024 dated,22.O8.2O24 to Municipal Commissioner of Nizampet to fix the fence to protect valuable Government Lald.

¶62

In addition to the above, it is also stated that the petitioner/ accused No.2 addressed letter dated 3O.O8.2O24 to the District Collector brining all the aspects to his notice and even the aspect of.liling- of -Writ.Petition. No,-1274 of 2024 by

¶63

{

¶64

¶65

sxs,J CrLP-Nos.1O28O & fi4al of 2024

¶66

¶67

M/s Maps lnfra whereunder, order dated 11.O1.2O24 was passed directing not to interfere with the property of petitioner i.e., M/s. Maps Infra. It is conclusively submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that even though the petitioner/ accused No.2 initiated his optimum string of efforts to protect the Government Land from illegal encroachment, he has been falsely implicated in this criminal case on the basis of vague and baseless allegations and even if the same are taken in their entirely, no offence as alleged against the petitioner would attract. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Crl.P.No.1O481 of 2O24 quashing the proceedings initiated 11. Learned counsel for petitioner/ accused No.3 submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner/ accused No.3 is that he mentioned the subject .lands. as private lands instead of Government lands in collusion with the petitioner/ accused No.2. He further submitted that the said word 'private land' was occurred due to t5rpographical mistake as the manuscript signed by the petitioner/accused No.2 refers to the said land as prime land and latei, the same was corrected and that a perusal of the letter dated 23.03.2024 specifically

¶68

¶69

sxs,J CrLP.Nos.7O28O & 1O4a1 oJ 2024

¶70

demonstrates that the subject survey number is a Government Land and the word occurred as private is only an inadvertent typo mistake which cannot be treated as a crime with intention. [n fact, when the mistake was found vide Lr. Rc. No.A 1 / 7 8 / 2024 dated 12.06.2024 a corrigendum letter has been issued. Therefore, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/accused No.3 in commission of offences as alleged against him. Therefore, it is unfair to compel the petitioner/ accused No.3 to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial in the absence of missing of the offence in the complaint. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against ' : :.' : ..

¶71

Per contro, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and filed counter stating that the petitioner/accused No.2 falsely represented land boundaries on a sketch map without verihcation; issued an unauthorized attested sketch map; colluded with other accused to help encroachers to obtain permissions on government land and failed to protect government lands and assets, despite being responsible for doing so. In essence, the petitioner/accused

¶72

srs,J CrLP.Nos.7O28O & 1O4A1 oJ 2024

¶73

No.2 was actively involved in fraudulent activities reiated to land boundaries and permissions, and should be held accountable.

¶74

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the attested sketch by the petitioner/accused No.2 enabled third parties to misrepresent and obtain permission on Government land (part of Errakunta Tank) for which they are responsible. Their deliberate actions led to the misidentification of Government land and construction of illegal structures on Government land beyond the allowed buffer zone and full tank levei, facilitated by willful representation and incorrect survey numbers

¶75

The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner/ accused No.2, who holds a responsible designation, failed to atiend a cruiial loint inspection to demarcate land in Sy.No. 134 and despite this the Revenue Inspector proceeded with the survey and formalities without the presence of petitioner/ accused No.2, which amounts to deliberate omission. Moreover, the iearned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the co-ordinates of the land available in official records,. .were^. no.t- included^.in. the Panchanama report

¶76

¶77

srs,J CrLP.Nos.lO28O & 1O4a1 oJ 2024

¶78

and that this omission was not brought to the attention of the District Collector when submitting the report.

¶79

The learned Additional Public prosecutor further argued that despite issuance of orders by this Court directing to use recorded coordinates for demarcation, the same was not mentioned in the panchalama report and was not even used for physical demarcation. As a result of which, valuable Government land was incorrectly demarcated, allowing thirdparty encroachment, which moves contrary to proper procedures overseen by the court.

¶80

It is submitted that in 2O2O-2O22,1the Tahsilda4 and revenue officials opposed construction on the subject land, leading to demolition of unauthorized structures. Despite this, the accused failed to pay attention for the Government land, which is well-documented in Revenue records. The petitioner/accused No.2 as a senior public servant, holds significant influence and power, posing a substantial risk of evidence tampering, particularly land records and survey documents, which are yet to be fully collected.

¶81

17 . The petitioner/ accused No.3 made contradictory statements in three letters to the District Collector:

¶82

¶83

sl(s,J crLP.Nos. TO2AO A, 1o4a1 of2024

¶84

l. L9.O3.2o24 (File No.Rc.No.Al/7a/ 2O2a): Described Suwey No.134 as^"prime land" (unofficia-l term), raising concerns as it's government-owned Full Tank Level (FTL) land. (terter not available at District Collectorate Ofhce).

¶85

23-o3.2024 (Fiie No.Rc.No. Al /78120241: Referred to Sy.No.134 as "private land", contradicting the earlier statement. The original letter at the District Collector's office still says "private land", while the copy submitted to Court was altered to "prime land".

¶86

12.06.2024 (File No.Rc.No. Ar /78120241: Reverted to "prime land (government B.al,^{. adding .'lgovernment.laltd'i ia} handwriting. . Tri" ' belated adniisSion,

¶87

. . made after .public .scrutiny, suggests an attempt to cover up previous contradictory statements and avoid accountability.^"

¶88

The petitioner/ accused No.3 is alleged to have facilitated illegai constructions on Government land (Sy.No. 134) until HYDRAA demolished them on 1O.O8.2O24 and on 11.08.2024 and that criminal trust of breach and conspired to defraud the government and submitted three contradictory letters to the District Collector, falsely classi$ring Government land as private property, without mentioning the^' illegil structuies and thai engaged in

<br>

srs,J CrLP.Nos.1O28O & 10481 of 2024

¶93

deliberate manipulation to benefit encroachers, obscure the true land and true status, and enable illegal encroachments, exhibiting criminal misconduct. As a senior public official, the accused poses a risk of tampering with official land records ald influencing witnesses, obstructing the investigation. Therefore, the actions of the petitioner/accused No.3 have caused signihcant environmental damage in a Governmentprotected Full Tank Level area, raising serious public interest concerns

¶94

In conclusion, there are serious allegations exist against the petitioners/accused Nos.2^, ald^' 3 and, quashing of proceedings, at this stage, would hinder the investigation and that allowing the petitioners to potentially interfere with evidence or influence the course of justice..In essence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions, citing concerns that it would obstruct the investigation and potentially allow the petitioners to tamper with evidence or influence the outcome of the case.

¶95

The Court has reviewed the submissions and material on record, and finds that the petitioner/accused No.2 is alleged to have issued an incorrect sketch^.map, showing

¶96

¶97

srs,J crLP.Nos.1O28O & 1o4a1 of 2024

¶98

constructions in Sy.No.49 instead of Sy.No. 134, where they actually took place and enabled fraudulent^{building permits,} allowing illegal activity, using his influence and^{power and} tampered with evidence, including land records and survey documents. Further, the petitioner/Accused No.3 is alleged^to hold a position of power,^posing a risk of^{tampering with} oflicial records. Therefore, the police have registered a^case against the petiti,oners under various sections of the^(BNS), i.e., Sections 59, 198, 2O1, 316(5), 329(3),324^(31,49and 61(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, which are extracted^hereunder:

¶99

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF BNS:

¶100

:,: i.a-

¶101

.. -- -59-. hrbUc. , servaat concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent. Whoever, being a^{publicservant,} intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence \i'hich it is his duty as such^public servant to prevent, voluntarily conceals, by^arty act or omission or by the use of encryption^or any other information hiding tool, the^existence of a design to commit such offence, or^makes any representation which he knows to^{be false} respecting such design shall,-

¶102

(a) if the offence be committed, be punished $,ith imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which^may exlend to one.half of the Iongesi term of^such

¶103

¶104

¶105

srs,J CrLP.Nos.lO28O & tO4At ol 2024

¶106

I I

¶107

lmpnsonment, or with such line as is provided for that offence, or with both; or

¶108

(b) if the offence be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years; or

¶109

(c) if the offence be not committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

¶110

Punishmeut of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence aud where no express provision is made for its putrishnent.-Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in .o.r""qr.a." of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Sanhita for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

¶111

Crirnii.t couspiracy._ (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy,_

¶112

(a) to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Sanhita for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the sarne manner as if he had abetted such offence;

¶113

¶114

sras,J CrLP.Nos.lo2ao & 10441 of 2024

¶115

(b) other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

¶116

316- Criminal breach of trust.-(s) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property,^or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent commits criminal breach of trust in respect of thal property, shall be^punishedwith imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term^rvhich may^extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to^frne.

¶117

Mischief.-(1) Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to^cause, . wrijngft lcjiij oi hdnidse to tt-ri liriblic or.to^-riiiy person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in^the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes^its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.

¶118

.l'"

¶119

(3) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to any^property including the property of Government or^l,ocal Authority shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which^{may extend} to one year, or with hne, or with both

¶120

329- Criminal trespass aud^house- trespass.-(3) Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of

¶121

¶122

srs,J CrLP.Nos.lO28O & 1o4al of 2024

¶123

either description for a term which may extend to three months, or witi fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both."

¶124

21 . Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, this Court finds that the petitioner/ accused No.2 is alleged to have falsely represented boundaries on a sketch map and issued an unauthor2ed attested sketch map; and colluded with other accused to help encroachers to obtain permissions on government land and failed to protect government lands and assets, despite holding a responsible position and being actively involved in fraudulent activities related to land boundaries and permissions. Further, the. petitioner/accused No.3 is alleged to have made contradictor5r , statements _^."t' and addressed letters to the District Collector three times, falsely classi$ring government land as private land. These allegations align with various offences under Sections 59, 198, 2Ol, 49 and 61(2) read with 3(5) of BNS and at this stage, it cannot be said that they are not attracted against the petitioners.

¶125

That apart, the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 are also charged for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of BNS. To apply this section, it must be proven that they are public servants they were entrusted with the property or had

¶126

¶127

srs,J CrLP.Nos.lO2SO & 10481 oJ 2024

¶128

dominion over it and that they committed criminal breach of trust with regard to the subject property. For constituting the offence under Section 3 16(5) of BNS, prosecution has to satisfy the ingredients of Section 316(l) of BNS. There must be entrustment or dominion over property. Dishonestiy misappropriated or converted the property to his own use or using or disposing in violation of any directions of law or a legal contract. If we examine the report, there are no allegations with regard to misappropriation or using or disposing of property in contravention of law. However, the complaint lacks independent evidence of entrustment. Furtheir, deriving interesr^'ippeaii io b6 one of the esse.rtial components, report is completely silent on this aspect. Even if the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 partially admitted to entrustment, it doesn't establish the case. Therefore, the prosecution did not make any averment to constitute the offence under Section 316(5) of BNS against the petitioners.

¶129

That apart, as seen from the complaint, there are no specific allegations to attract Sections 324 (3) and 329(3) of BNS as the petitioners did not commit any mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to any property including the

¶130

¶131

srs,J crLP.Nos.1O28O & 10481 of 2024

¶132

property of Government or Local Authority and they did not criminally trespassed into the subject lands. Therefore, the said sections are not applicable to the petitioners.

¶133

In view of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that, pima facie, there are no averments to constitute the offence against the petitioners under Sections 316(5), 324 (31 and 329(3) of BNS and the same is not applicable to the petitioners and that since the punishment prescribed for the remaining offences alleged against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are less than Seven 1021 years the Investigating Offrcer is directed to'follow the due process of law.

¶134

In view thereof, these Criminal petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

¶135

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, and in turn, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 (3) of BNSS (previously section 41-A of Cr.P.C.) and also l"he guidelines

¶136

¶137

sxs-J CrLP.Nos.1O28O & ,O4at oI2O;4

¶138

formulated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Arnesh l<umdr a. State of Bihar 1 scrupulously.

¶139

The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall submit their defense and co_operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and produce all relevant documents/material required for the purpose of the investigation and the Investigating Officer shall consider the same before filing appropriate report before the learned Magistrate concerned.

¶140

Miscellaneous applica[ions; if anlr pending, shall also

¶141

stand closed.

¶142

.r.o, \

¶143

sd/_K. AMMAJT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / /'TRUEC3PY/ / w{> SECTION OFFICER

¶144

1' The Principar Junior Civ, Judg-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Ireddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2' The Station House officer, Eow Cyb (Cyberabacl) porice starion, Cyberabad. 3. One CC to Sri T.srikanrh Reddy Advocu," 1OfUCl 4. One CC to Sri T.Srujan Kumar-Reddy, Aclvocate tOpUCl 5' one CC to the public prosecutor, FIi;h Court Buiidings, Hyderabad. [opuc] 6. Two CD Copies JCK/DL

HIGH COUR'I

DATED:13 / 09 /ZOZa

COMMON ORDF,R

Crirninal l)e'tition Nos.10280 and 1 048'l of 2024

¶152