Dismissed¶44

Edukulla Jagadeesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2025CRLP/4009/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (N. Tukaramji J, 10.06.2025) refuses to quash criminal proceedings at threshold in CRLP No.4009 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS; charges under Sections 427, 380 r/w 34 IPC for demolition of school compound wall/classrooms and theft of furniture using JCB and tractor; claim of ownership backed by civil suit O.S. No.6 of 2023 and vacant land tax does not negate potentially criminal overt acts; abuse-of-process plea rejected; defence left to trial; Miryalguda; de-facto complainant; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The witness statements, on their face, suggest the petitioner's involvement in the incident. ¶43

Edukulla Jagadeesh Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No.1) in C.C. No.205 of 2024 before the Principal J.F.C.M., Miryalguda, for offences under Sections 427, 380 read with Section 34 IPC, ought to be quashed, given his claim of ownership and pendency of a civil suit regarding the property.

¶15

Court's answer

The witness statements, on their face, suggest the petitioner's involvement in the incident.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Mere assertions of ownership or possession do not negate the alleged overt acts, which are potentially criminal in nature; these are matters best examined during trial, where the petitioner can raise his defence and contest the evidence.

¶43

Key takeaways

At the preliminary stage there appeared to be no compelling legal ground to interfere with or quash the ongoing proceedings in the Calendar Case.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 528 BNSS dismissed. Petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.1 in Calendar Case C.C. No.205 of 2024 on the file of the Principal J.F.C.M., Miryalguda, for offences punishable under Sections 427, 380 read with Section 34 IPC - alleging trespass into the premises of Saraswathi Shishu Mandir School, Vasavi Nagar, Miryalguda with JCB and Tractor vehicles, demolition of the school compound wall and classrooms, and theft of classroom furniture (incident dated 14.05.2024 per charge-sheet) - sought quashment contending he is the rightful owner, pays vacant land tax, and has instituted O.S. No.6 of 2023 before the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda. Held: witness statements on their face suggest the petitioner's involvement; mere assertions of ownership or possession do not negate alleged overt acts which are potentially criminal in nature, and such matters are best examined during trial; at the preliminary stage there was no compelling legal ground to interfere with or quash the ongoing proceedings. Petition dismissed for want of merit; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4009 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Edukulla Jaga{qe9l-r, S./9- Lgle Purnachander Rao, Aged about. 44 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.1'lB, H. No.12-1-79lSE, Anandi E-nclave, padmavathi Cotony, Nagole, Hyderabad.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court of I".l"n.g.ul,^{at.Hyderabad, Through Stati6nHouseOfficer,triliryalgrldall Town} P.S., Nalgonda.

¶12

.....Respondent No.1

¶13

Z. 9pryi Sudhakar, S/o Paramesham, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Shabunagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda, Telangana.

¶14

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

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash C.C. No.205i2024 on the file of principal J.F.C.M. at Miryalguda.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 in c.c. No.2osl2o24 on the file of principal J.F.C.M. at Miryalguda.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K CHAITHANYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the

¶19

Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of relangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

t I I I i

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4009 OF 2025

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short IBNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C No.205 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of Firsl Class, IMiryalaguda

¶27

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.'l in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 380 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860.

¶28

Heard [VIr.K.Chaithanya, learned counsel for the petitioner and lMr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. representing the respondent No.'1-State

¶29

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner along with others criminally trespassed into the premises of Saraswathi Shishu Mandir School, Vasavi Nagar, Miryalguda, with JCB and Tractor vehicles, demolished the school compound wall and the class rooms and committed theft of classroom furniture.

¶30

NIR / Clr/.l).,0. 1009 ol^{202 5}

i t I

: )

Learned counsel for the^petitioner contends that the^{petitioneris the} rightful and original owner of the scheduled^premises. He^{regularlypays} vacant land tax and has also instituted a civil suit-O S. No.6 of^2023- before the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, seeking^padition and^separate possession of the said property along with other co-owners ln contrast, respondent No. 2, the deJacto complainant, has no legal or^possessory interest in the property. Therefore, the petitioner's act of entering his own property cannot, under any circumstance, amount to criminal trespass Furthermore, the allegations regarding damage ancj theft of school furniture are, according to the petitioner, fabricated and intended solely to prevent him from accessing the property. Learned counsel argues that the continuation of the prosecution in the Calendar Case amounts to an abuse of the^{judicialprocess.} Accordingly, he^prays for the^quashing of all further proceedings against the petitioner in the said case

¶35

6 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has been named as the prime accused in the case. The investigation, as per the Police Report, corroborates the occurrence of the incident as alleged. Statements from witnesses, including drivers of the JCB and Tractor allegedly involved, support the narrative implicating the petitioner Moreover, the Calendar Case is at the threshold of trial. and^judicial intervention at this stage would prejudice the due course of^justice

N/R,/

'tw

(.lr/. l).N o. 1009 ol' 202 i

¶41

7 I have carefully examined the materials on record

¶42

o According to the charge-sheet, the incident in question took^place on 14.05.2024, wherein the petitioner, along with co-accused, allegedly entered the premises claimed by the de-facfo complainant, using a JCB to demolish the compound wall and classrooms and subsequently removed school furniture. The case is under consideration to determine the criminal liability of the petitioner (accused No.1) along with other accused

¶43

The witness statements, on the face of it, suggest the petitioner's involvement in the rncident. ln such a situation, mere assertions of ownership or possession do not negate the alleged overt acts, which are potentially criminal in nature. These are matters best examined during trial, where the petitioner can raise his defence and contest the evidence At this preliminary stage, there appears to be no compelling legal ground to interfere with or quash the ongoing proceedings in the Calendar Case

¶44