Disposed

Gumpena Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Apr 2025CRLP/1551/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging trespass and related offences said to have occurred in 2019 amid pending civil disputes between family members. The Court disposed of the petition directing the Investigating Officer to consider all differences and conclude investigation without taking coercive steps against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to be concluded without coercive steps against petitioners; miscellaneous applications closed.

Gumpena Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABOO[.,U' ] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 155 10F 2025

¶3

Between

¶4

1 Gumpena Satyanarayana, S/o rate Lachaiah, Aqed about 63 years, - occ_

¶5

Agriculture, R/o Akula Marlaram vlttage, fanJuiuru" mandal, R.R. District.

¶6

2 Gumpena Sai prasad, Slo Satyaiarayr"r, ng"o about 30 years, Occ_ . Agriculture, r- R/o Akula Mailaram villag", kr,.,Ori?, mandal, R,R. District.

¶7

3 Gumpena Chintu @ Shiva prasad-, d;Srt;;;;;;ana, Aged about 24 years, 99?-.^{Pvt Emptoyee, R/o Akuta f,rfaifrr"r'vifirgei} Kandukuru mandat, R.R. District.

¶8

Gumpena Urmila, W/o, Satyanarayana, Aged about 55 years, OccAgriculture, R/o Akula Mailaram viffage, XanOuk-; mandat, R.R. Diskict. ...pETtTtONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 to 4

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor High Court Building, Hyderabad

¶11

2 !r1"sm^{Jasan,s/o samaiah, Ased 50} vur,., occlSiH:::,"_'ffit',iffi1, 2-7, Netaji Nagar, Saroorn"grr, fr.R. Oi.tri"t,l. p", Fj.n ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶12

Petition under Section 52g of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand* or c-Lr-nos of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased_ to quash tne proceeJi-ngs in crime No. 95 of 2024, Pending on the fite of p S Green.pnrrr,^'C-.iif nr"f,rionO, Rangareddy against the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 4 herein;

¶13

l.A. NO:2 OF 2025

¶14

Petition under -section_ 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrnt oicro,inos of criminar petition,the Ijgl^^C:rI^{may be pteased to STAy att -furthei} proceedings in Crime No 9512024, Pending p S Green pharma City nacnatonda Rangareddy against the Petitioners/ Accused No.^.l to 4 herein;

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition- and upon nJrrin! tf,u arguments of Sri G RAMA .HANDER RAo, Advocate for the^{'petitioneis-} anJ sri lrt.viverananda Reddy, Addl Public Prosecutor on beharf or tne iespono"nt r.ro i and none appear for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

¶17

t I

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1551 of 2o25

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.95 of 2024 pendins on the hle of the Green Pharmacity Police Station, Rachakonda, for the offences under Sections 447, 427,323,506 read with 34 of IPC, 3(1)(f) SC, ST (PoA) Act.

¶23

2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l - State. Perused the record.

¶24

The 2"a respondent lodged a complaint against these petitioners on .the^{allegation that the petitioners have rrespassed} into the land. The complaint and also the FIR shows that the offence happened in the year 2019.

¶25

There are several disputes pending in between the family members of the petitioners. The suits filed were already dismissed. It appears that deliberately a complaint was hled against these petitioners to settle the civil disputes. In this said background, all the differences in_ between the petitioners and

¶26

¶27

the 2.d respondent^{shall be considered by the Investigating} Officer. The Investigating^{Officershallconcludeinvestigation} without taking^{coercive stepsagainst these petitioners'}

¶28

5 Accordingly,^{this Criminal Petition is disposed of'}

¶29

Miscellaneous^{applications,ifany pending' shall also}

¶30

stand closed.

¶31

SD/- N, SRI^HARI DEPUTY^REGTSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The XVI^{Metropolitan Magistrate' lbrahimpatnam' Rachakonda} L The Station^{House Officer, Green PharmacityP S ' Rachakonda} J .j;;L.6.t; ini^{c nnrt'rncHANDERRAo Advocate.[oPUCl} 4 Yffi;;ii""dJelrc^{Pnosibilioi'nighcourt at Hvderabad(oUr)} 5 Two CD CoPies vSlvl/qtrv

¶36

HIGH COURT

¶37

DATED:2310412025

¶38

(h,t Sr/AtG
,a
z
0 2 i{AY Affi
i t
a)SsnnrcH r-O

¶39

ORDER

¶40

CRLP.No.1551 of 20Zs

¶41

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Gumpena Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gumpena Satyanarayana 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

K. S. Thanarajan Vs The State of Telangana

Thatisetti Ramesh , Ramesh Vardhan Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Ghani Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Sri UdariMallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Bucha Saroja Vs The State of Telanana and another

Singaram Akhil Vs State of Telangana