Mohammed Azhar Khan Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

t³³⁸⁵¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUSI TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4927 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Azhar Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Sardar Khan, Aged about 36 years, Prof. Educationist, R/o. H.No 9-5-441181103. Anjarahnagar, Hashmatpet, Secunderabad - 500 009 and 8 ors.

¶9

..Petitioner / A1

¶10

2 Mohd Lateef Khan, S/o. Late Mohd Sardar Khan, Aged about 53 years, Prof. Advocate, R./o. H.No. 9-5-441181G1 , Anjaiahnagar, Hashmatpet, Secunderabad - 500 009.

¶11

..Petitioner / 42

¶12

Mohammed lmran Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Sardar Khan, Aged about 38 years, Prof. Advocate, R/o. H.No. 9-5441181102, Anjaiahnagar, Hashmatpet, Secunderabad - 500 009.

¶13

...Petitioner / A3

¶14

Syed lmroze Ahmed, S/o. Syed Taher Ahmed, Aged about 33 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No. 1-4-53, Osmanpura, Kamareddy 5031 11.

¶15

...Petitioner / A4

¶16

Syed Feroze Ahmed S/o. Syed Taher Ahmed, Aged about 29 years, Occ Advocate, R/o. H.No.^'14-53, Osmanpura, Kamareddy 50311'1

¶17

..Petitioners / Accused No.5

¶18

AND

¶19

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

¶20

...Respondent No.1

¶21

2 Karramkonda^{liathyanarayana,S/o. Siddaiah,Aged abotrl 51-years,} 9tt -^^ rvrlnlg"iriTLrkui^{Savedkar Beedi Co} ,^{R/o PMHColotl,.Kamareddy- 503} 111

¶22

...De-facto Complainarrt^{I Respondent No'2}

¶23

Petition under section^{528 of BNSS prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition, re High c.ourtmay} be^{pleasedto call for records pertainingto cc123t2025 dt lttl112025 on theftle} of Judicial^{First class Magistratecourt, Kamareddyand qua:;hthe proceedings} for alleged offencers^{under Sec. 447} '^{427, 5O7 rlw :zlPC againstthe} petitioners/Accused Nos.¹ to^5.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶25

Petitton under section⁵²⁸ of^{BNSS prayingthat i1 the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,.re High courtmay} be pleased to stay of^{all furtherproceedingsagainst the i'etitio ners/Accu sed} Nos. 1 to 5 in cct2'.Jt2025 dt^{1Ot1t2O25 on file of Judicial Fi ;t class Magistrate} Court, Kamareddy 'or^{alleged offencesunder Sec. 447, 4i17, 507 rlw 34 IPC} including investigation,^{personal appearanceand arrest o'A1to A5, pending} disposal of the Criminal^Petition.

¶26

This Petition coming on^{for hearing, upon perusing t- e ltrlemorandum of} Grounds of Crimiral^{Petition and upon hearing the ar-1lumentsof Sri K} Karunakar, Advocate^for the^{Petitionersand the Assistarr-PublicProsecutor} (TG/AP)onbehalfoftheRespondentNo.landofSrivjayB'Paropakart, Advocate for the ResPondent^No.2

¶27

The Court made the following^Order:-

¶28

THE HOI{OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE I(. SUJANA

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4927 of 2o25

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Criminal Petition is hled seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 5 in C.C.No.23 of 2025 on the hle of the learned^Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, registered lor^thc offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506^read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short^'lPCJ.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are that respondenl No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the^petitioners stating that on O3.1O.2O23 at Siricilla Road, Kamareddy,^the accused persons, namely Azar Khan,^Lateef Khan,^Imran Khan, lmroz, Feroz, Zahed, Shaker, Maulu,^Gireddy Shivareddy, Suthari Laxmi, Suthari Poshawa, Saddam, and Md. Sirajoddin, allegedly trespassed into the land measuring Ac.0.43 guntas in Sy.No.43/l/2 belonging^toThakur Sadhekar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., damaged the^{fencing, gate, and wall} causing a loss of about^{Rs.2,00,O0O/-,and threatenedto kill} the complainant. The land^{had been purchased by the}

¶33

\

¶34

2

¶35

SKS,J cr) I' No.4927 ot 2O2S

¶36

company f:-on-r Suthari Laxmi and Poshawa in t'tr.yr--ar 2012, and they had been in possession since.then. In th,: year 2020, Suthari Laxmi and Poshavva allegedly executed frerudulent sale deed i r favour of Gireddy Shivareddy, for wh :h zr r:ase in Cr.No.278 ol 2O2O was registered. In the veitr 2022, Shivareddy sold thc Iand to Zahed., who later s rl.l it to Azar Khan. The complainant alleged that the accusoc r:reated fake documents with an intention to unlawfully takc p,rssession of the land.

¶37

Basing on the said complaint, the Policc registr:red a case in Crimc No..58 I of 2023 for the offence j punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 3.1 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they hled charglr shcet, vide C.C.No.23 .;f 2025 belbre the learned Judicial Vl lgistrate of First Clas:;, Kamareddy. Aggrieved by thc same, the petitioners hled the present criminal petition t0 quash the proceedings, against them.

¶38

Hear<l Sri K. Karunakar, learned counsel ir pearing on behalf of Lhe petitioners as well as Sri M. Vivekar:: 'rda Reddy, learned Ass;istant Public Prosecutor appearing rrr behalf of

¶39

-------t

¶40

3

¶41

sKs,J Crl-P-No.4927 of 2025

¶42

respondent No.l - State and Sri Vrjay B. Paropakari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respon{ent No.2.

¶43

Lrarned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the property in question and was protected by a subsisting injunction order. Hence, the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 5O6 read with Section 34 IPC could not be invoked against the true owner. He further submitted that the de facto^{complainant,without any title, possession,or right,} attempted to encroach upon the property of the petitioners on O3.1O.2O23 in collusion with others, against whom the injunction order was already operating. He further submittd that the petitioners had lodged several complaints to the police against such miscreants, but no effective action was taken and he denied the allegation in the charge sheet that the petitioners had surrendered before the police and confessed their guilt, and called upon the prosecution to strictly prove the same.

¶44

lrarned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint itself disclosed the fraudulent conduct of respondent No.2, and that the essential ingredients of the

\ ,--. r.1

4

SKS,J Crl.l' No.4927 of 2O2S

¶49

alleged offences were absent and that the claim rl respondent No.2, if arry, was monetary in nature and pur. ly civil, for which the.-emedy lay in the civil Court. He furttr.: conl,ended that the property of the petitioners was already r:overcd by an injunction order in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No^'' of 2Ct23 oo the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge. iamareddy, wherein respondent No-2 u,as the henchman c' defendant No. 1. He further contended that prior FIRs, in,:luding FIR No.568 of 2023 daLed 26.09.2O23 and FIR No:,12 of 2023 dated 08.1O.2O23, had been registered agains: respondent No.2 and his associates for similar acts of lrr:spass and assault, in<:luding an attack causing grievous inj . ries lo one advocate ar-rd that [he present complaint was ]l I --d with an intent to harass the petitioners, subvert the pr,r ess of law, and forcibly take possession of the proper_f, thereby constituting a misuse of the legal process.

¶50

In support of his submissions, he reliec upo;t the judgments in the cases of Sulochana Devi .Agarwala v. District Magistrate, Upsuryaveer Singh @ Tillarr s. State of U.P., Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttaratrhand.l and Usha

¶51

' lzor:1 rr scc sz:

¶52

5

¶53

SKS,J Crl.P.No.4927 ol2O2

¶54

Y

¶55

Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal2, to contend that when disputes are essentially civil in nature and are given the colour of criminal offences to harass the accused, the Court must invoke its inherent powers to quash such proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by aliowing this criminal petition.

¶56

On the other hand, learned Assistalt Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature. There are several cases pending against each other. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against them does not arise. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶57

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 hled counter affidavit denying the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the claim of the petitioners rested on an injunction order granted in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2023 by the learned Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, which was only an ex

¶58

'sle 1c4.1^{No.5866of 2022}

I&r

-.r-f--q

5

SKS,J Crl I No .4927 of 2025

¶63

parte ad-itLerim order passed on 08.06.2023. He further submitted that the petitioners wrongly re i d on the withdrawal o1' O.S.No.6l of 2O2O, whereas resl>,:ndeni N<.r.2 was never ir parfy to that suit. He further submir _ed that the petitioner claimed possession over land in Sy.llo.4 I / 1 admeasurirrg Ac.O 27 gts at Sircilla Road, Kamarr dd1,, which was also the subject matter of O.S.No.7 of 2023. 1n that suit, the petitioner had filed t.A.No.707 of 20.,1 sr-'eking amendmen, Lo claim recovery of possession, J; tt thr: said petition was dismissed by order dated 28.03.2C 1t5, grzrnting liberty to fi e zr fresh suit- This dismissal order, : rr:cording to counsel, wirs suppressed in the present case. F c contended that respondent No.2 was not a party to O.S.No'.'O7 of 2024 or O.S.No.61 ol 2O2O, and therefore, those procee rlings could not be relir:d upon against him. Therefore, hr prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶64

In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel an I upon a perusal of the material a,'ailable on record, it is noted that the allegations against the petitioners are for offences under Sections 447, 427, and 50,, read with Section 34 ()f the IPC. The record reveals that cir,i suits have

¶65

7

¶66

SKS,J ctl.P.No.4927 of 2O2S

¶67

t I

¶68

been filed by both parties. The suit hled by the de facto complainant was dismissed as withdrawn, whereas the present petitioners fited I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.O7 of 2023, in which the trial Court, on 08.06.2023, granted an injunction order in favour of the petitioners. The alleged incident occurred subsequently, on 03. 10.2023.

¶69

Whether or not the de facto complainant was a party to the said civil suit, the trial Court rccorded the possession of the petitioners and granted an injunction order in their favour. Further, even according to the de facto complainant, the petitioners purchased the property from one Gireddy Shivareddy. The allegation that such execution was fraudulent is not an issue for determination in the present proceedings, and, as on date, the title document stands in favour of the petitioners.

¶70

In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant, particularly in view of the subsisting injunction order in their favour and the fact that there are^{pending civil} disputes between the parties, in which the civil Court will decide the issue of ownership. The continuation of the

¶71

8

¶72

SKS,J ctl l' No.4927 of 2025

¶73

criminal pr-oceedings, therelore, amounts to an r: buse of the process of au'and is liable to be quashed.

¶74

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allo,r:d, and the proceedings a6lainst the petitioners in C.C.No.2.l o[ 2Ct25 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of^.irst Class, Kamareddl', are hereby quashed.

¶75

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pcr riing, il any, shall stand closed.

¶76

SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

@

SECTION OFFICER

To,