Allowed

Shivdeep Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Nov 2025CRLP/5942/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed Criminal Cases 10419 of 2020, 10914 of 2020, and 5621 of 2021; holding their continuation to be an abuse of process of law, especially given prior acquittal on similar facts and lack of municipal proceedings under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petitions Crl.P.Nos. 5942, 5943, and 6039 of 2021 are allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings are quashed.

Shivdeep Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[33031

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL P ETITION Nos. 5942, 5943, 6039 OF 2021

¶7

CRIMINAL PETI TION NO: 5942 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shivdeep Agarwal, S/o. Late. Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, No. 10-317712, Humayunnagar, Asifnagar, H yderabad, Telangana State.

¶10

Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late. Shyam SunderAgarwal, Aged 47 yearc, Occ. Business, Rlo. 10-317712, Humayunnagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 & 2

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

Md, Khaja lnkeshaf Ali, S/o. Md Yakub Ali, Aged. 51 years, Depu ty Commissioner, Circle-12, Mehdrpatnam, Khairatabad Zone, G.H. M-C Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 quash the C.C. 10419 of 2O2O on the file of I Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 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 the appearance of the petitioners / Accused in C.C. 10419 of 2O2O, on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad.

¶19

CRIMINAL PETlTll)N NO: 5943 OF 2021

¶20

Between:

¶21

Shivdeep Agarwal, S/o. Late. Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Aged 45 years, OccBusiness, Ri o. 1 0-3177 12, Humayunnagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶22

Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late. Shyam SunderAgarwal, Aged 47^years, Occ- B.usiness, Rlo. 10-317712, Humayunnagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶23

...Petitioner/Accused No.1 and 2

¶24

AND

¶25

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

¶26

Md Kha.ia lnkeshaf Ali, S/o. Md Yakub Ali, Aged- 51 years, Depu ty Commissioner, Circle-12, Mehdipatnam, Khairatabad Zone, G.H. M.C., Hyderabad

¶27

Petition und,:r 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 io quash tlre C.C. 10914 of 2020 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampallv at Hyderabad, in the interest of^justice.

¶28

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶29

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 the appearance of the petitioners /Accused in C.C. 10914 of 2020 On the file of I Addl. Chief Metr-opolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad.

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6039 OF 2021

¶31

Between:

¶32

'l . lrfan Khan , S/o. Hakeem Khan, Aged 25 years, Occ. 10-3-19218112, 5th floor, Noor Jahan Residency, Vi.iayanagar Colony, Mandipatnam, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶33

Shivdeep Agarwal. S/o. Late. Shyam Sunder Aganaral, Aged 46 years, Occ. Business, Rlo. 10-3177 12, Humayunnagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶34

Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late. Shyam SunderAgarwal, Aged 48 vears, Occ. Business.^trJo. 10-317712, Humayunnagar, Asifnagar Hyderabad, T

¶35

...Petitioner/A:cused Nos.'l To 3

¶36

AND

¶37

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

¶38

Md. Khaja lnkeshaf Ali, Sio. Md Yakub Ali, Aged. 52 years, Depu ty Commissioner, Circle- 12, Mehdipatnam, Khairatabad Zone, G.H. IV.C Hyderabad.

¶39

...Respondents

¶40

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 quash the C.C. No. 5621 of 2O21 , on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad, in the interest of justice.

¶41

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶42

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 the appearance of the petitioners / Accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No 5621 of 2021 , on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad, in the interesl of^justice.

¶43

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A MUJEEB ,Advocate for the^Petitioners in all^{CRLPs and} Sri^{M VivekanandaReddy,} Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in all CRLPs and of Sri M Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel for GHMC for the Respondent No.2 in all CRLPS.

¶44

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶45

(-t

¶46

.TH[, HON'BLE SRT JTISTICE,I.SREENI\I.\S RAo

¶47

CRIMI\AL PETITION Nos.5942.5943 and 6039 of 2021

¶48

C0MMON OITI)ER:

¶49

Crl.P.No.5942 of 2021 is fited seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.t04l9 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Chicf Metropolitan Magistrate, Narnpally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners u'cre arayed as accused Nos. I and 2, fbr the offerrces punishable under Sections 447 and 427 rlw 34 of the lndian Penal Code. 1860^(fcrr short, 'IPC'); Crl.P.No.5943 of 2021 seeking to quaslr the proceedings in C.C.No.l09l4 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional^('hiel' Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalll', Hyderabad, wherein the pe'titioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2, for the otlcrrces punishable under Section 447 r/w i4 ot' thc I[)C ar-rd Crl.P.No.60l() o1- 202 I is tlled seeking to quash the 1;roceedings in C.('.No.561I of 202 [ on the file of the t Adrlitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were arayed as accused Nos.l to 3, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and353 rlw 34 ofthe IPC. 2. In all these cases, based on the cornplaint of respondent No.2, crimes were r:egistered against the petitioners. The petitioners and respondent No.? are the same parties in all matters, except petitioner

¶50

¶51

I I I I

¶52

No.l/accused No.l in Crl.P.No.6039 of 2021, and the allegations irL all the complaints pertain to the same property.

¶53

Heard Sri M.A.Mu^jeeb, leamed counsel appearing lor the petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Iteddy, learned Additional I'ublic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. I and Sri M.Arun Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2.

¶54

l,carned counsel lor the petitioners submits that the petitioncr\ have not cornrnitted any offence and they have been t'alsei. implicated in the present cases. Even according to the allegations inade either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients ol the allegcd of'tlnces are not attracted against the petitioners. Lle further submitted that,, with similar allegations of encroachment of the very same park, Crime No.208 of 2015 was registered on the file ol Asif Nagar Police Station, tbr the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, and 427 rlw 149 of the IPC against six accused persons. The Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, f.iled a tin:rl report on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, and the said Court took cognizance and numbered the case as C.C. No.149 of 2018. The leamed Magistrate,

¶55

¶56

¶57

after taking into consideration the oral and docuntentary evidence adduced by thc prosecution, acquitted the accused therein through judgment dlted 14.05.2025. In the said judgrnent, the learned Magistrate :;pecifically held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the park rvas under the possession of the GHMC. The very same allegations are now levelled against the petitioners in the prcsent cascs alleging that they are trying to encroach upon the very same park and also trying to make constructions therern

¶58

l,earnc.i counsel lurther subnritted that the nature of the allegations nrade in the complaints af L' purely civil in nature Petitioners have filed suit in O.S.No. l8l ol20l5, on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge-, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was disrnissed lor non-prosecution and the parties have filed application for restoration, and the same is pending. He further submitted tllat respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, while discharging his duties as Deputy Commissioner. lodged the prescnt complaint, however, the GHMC authorities did not initiate any proceedings under the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafier referred to as'the Act'), on the other hand, initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners and the same is a clear abuse of the pn,cess ol law.

¶59

¶60

¶61

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel fbr respondent No.2 contended that there are specific allegations have been levellerl against the petitioners that they trespassed into the park land and damaged the property. \Vhether the petitioners have cornmitted thc ofl'ences or not has to be adjudicated aller a tull-fledged trial. Hence, based on the grounds pleaded in the present criminal petition, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶62

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and aficr perusal ol the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged complaints dated 01.10.2019. 1i.10.2019, and27.07.2020 against the petitioners alleging that thc petitioners, without hav ing any manner of right, are tlllng t0 encroach upon the park land and making unauthorised constructions. Ilasing on the said corrplaints, Crime Nos.295 and 288 of 2018 and 156 of 2020 were registered against the petitioners for the of-fences punishable under Sections 353, 447, and 427 rlw 34 of the IPC, and the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, filed final reports. Upon perusal of the allegations made in the complaints and charge sheets, it reveals that the very same allegations are levelled in all the three cases.

¶63

¶64

After perusal olthe copy of the^judgment tlatcd 14.05.2025 in C.C.No. 149 of 2018, the de-facto complainant/Assistrint City Planner, GFIMC had made similar allegations against 6 accused persons therein, alleging that they had cncroached upon the park and are making constructions.^'fhe learned I Additional Chicf Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, IJyderabad, by^judgment dated 14.05.2025, acquitted the accused therein for the olI'ences punishablc under Sections 147, 447, and 427 rlw 149 of the IPC. ln the said^judgment, the leamed Magistrate held that the prosecution had t'ailed to prove that the park was under the possession of the GFIM(' and also failed to establish that the accused persons had committed the alleged off'ences. In the present case, the very sarne allegations have been levelled against the petitioners.

¶65

The specific contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioners is that though O.S.No.l8l ol 2015, on the file of the VI Junior Civil .ludge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed for non-prosecution, it was not on merits, however the parties have already taken steps lor restoration of the suit. Even according to the parties, the GHMC authorities have not initiated any proceedings by exercising the powers conferred under the Act, against the petitioners.

¶66

¶67

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view llt that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners C.C.Nos.l04 l9and 10914ol'2020 and5621 of 2O2l,onthefileof the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, is clear abuse of process of law.^'fherefbre, the said proceedings are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed

¶68

I 1. ln the result. the Criminal Petitions are allowed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are conflned only to the disposal of these cases. lhis ordcr will not preclude the respondent No.2 or GI{MC authorities to initiate proceedings under the provisions ol'the Act.

¶69

As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶70

c losed.

¶71

SD/. A SREENIVASA RAO, A SISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad 2. The station House Officer, Asif nagar police Station, Hyd-erabad 3. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, rigrr court for the dtate of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶77

1 9n"^{CC to Sri M A Mujeeb,Advocate} tOpUCl

¶78

One CC to Sri M Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel for GHMC IOPUC]

¶79

Tyvo CD Copies

HIGH COI.JRT

DATED:1 111112025

lHE S T4
(
'c)<br>li
')
',{ - 2 1 ilol, 20?5
f, -l
*

¶84

COMMON ORDER

¶85

CRLP.Nos.5942,5943 and 5039 of 2021

¶86

ALLOWING ALL THE CRLPs

¶87

Shivdeep Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivdeep Agarwal 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

Dandi Karthik Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Sadiq Vs The State of Telangana

Muddapu @ Makkala Lohith Vs The State of Telangana

Shivdeep Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Masanpally Meheresh Vs The State of Telangana

D. Akhil Deep and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and another