Dismissed

Sri. Chinna Bandhyala Thirupathi Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Nov 2025CRLP/7484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for attempted assault and grievous hurt. The court held that since the case attracted Section 326 IPC based on medical evidence of grievous injury, it could not be treated as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition CRLP.No.7484 of 2023 and connected affairs dismissed.

Sri. Chinna Bandhyala Thirupathi Reddy, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ l

¶2

rN rHE H|GH couTf8$rrff"Blt E oF TELANGANA

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 748 4 OF ZO2S

¶7

Between:

¶8

sri. chinna Bandhyala Thirupathi Reddy s/o. CB Bal Reddy, aged. 42 years, Caste. Reddy, Occ. Business, R/o. Peddarevally Village, Baianagar Mandal.

¶9

Sri. chinna Bandhyala Ramana Reddy, s/o. cB. Bal Reddy, aged. 47 years, Caste. Reddy, Occ.Business, R/o. Peddarevally Village of Balanigar fVlandal.

¶10

sri. chinna Bandhyala Bal Reddy,, s/o. cB. Bal Reddy, aged. 62 years, Caste. Reddy, Occ. Agriculture, R,/o. Peddarevally Viliage of Balanagar lMandal.

¶11

smt. chinna Bandhyala Janamma,, w/o. cB. Bal Reddy, aged. 57 years, p_aste. Reddy, occ. Housewife, R/o.^peddarevally Village of Balanagar Mandal.

¶12

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 1 to 4

¶13

AND

¶14

The state of relangana, Rep by its public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana.

¶15

... RESPONDE NT/RESPON DE NT

¶16

sri.chinna Bandyala chandrashekar Reddy, s/o. c.B.Krishna Reddy, aged. 30 years, occ. Travel Driver, R/o.^pedda Revally Village of Bjtanigar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COM PLAINANT

¶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 QUASH the proceedings in C.C. 169 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First class at Jadcherla, against the petitioners/A-1 to 4.

¶19

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioners in C.C. No. 169 ot 2021 on the of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, against the Petitioners/A-1 to 4, pending disposal of main criminal petition.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. D Harshitha representing M/s. Chandrasen Law Offices, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri B. Venkat representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO N 7

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 169 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jadcherla, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 324, 323 and 506 rlw 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'[PC').

¶27

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.04.202L, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he and his family are pattadars and possessors of Ac.2-15 gts. in Sy.Nos.222, 221,220,210,209,229 and 233 of Peddarevally Village, standing in his father's name. His father had executed a sale deed conveying 2 acres to third parties. The complainant alleged that their copartners had been threatening them to sell the land only to them at their demanded rate and had issued threats to kill them. About a month prior, when the complainant's side levelled the land and erected fencing to deliver possession to the purchasers, the accused and their family obstructed the work, refusing passage. A

¶28

¶29

;....

¶30

panchayat was held and it was decided to conduct a land survey. On 22.04.2021, the complainant and his co-partners attended for the survey, but the family of Thirupathi Reddy did not. When contacted over phone, an altercation ensued and Ramana Reddy threatened to "see their end" the next day. Thirupathi Reddy also attempted to assault the complainant with a stone near the Pochamma Temple, but his intervened. On 23.04.2021 at about 08:10 hours, the accused persons came from Hyderabad to Peddarevally, along with their parents, trespassed into the complainant's house compound, parked their car in front of the compound wall, and assaulted the complainant and his uncle with sticks and rods, causing head injuries. When the cornplainant's parents and wife intervened, they were also beaten with sticks. His sisters were assaulted with hands. The complainant's father sustained injuries to both shoulders, his mother suffered injuries to her leg and hand, and his wife and sisters received internal injuries. Hence, the present complaint was lodged.

¶31

Heard Ms.D.Harshitha, learned counsel, representing

¶32

chandrasen Law offices, appearing on behalf of petitioners, Mr.M.vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public prosecutor / /

¶33

¶34

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.B.Venkat, Ieamed counsel, representing Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of the very same property, the petitioners have already initiated civil proceedings in O.S.No.39 of 2019, which are pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar, wherein respondent No.2/de-facto complainant is also a defendant. He further submitted that respondent No. 2 has no semblance of right over the subject property claimed in the present complaint. He is claiming rights over the property solely on the basis of revenue entries made pursuant to the order passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in Revision Case No.D I /6012018-File No.Rev/D I iRoR/Revn/ 006012018, dated 30.12.2019. However, the said order has already been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.4878 of 2020, by order dated 02.11.2024. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that LW.z sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the petitioners, and LWs.l,4 and 5 also sustained injuries. Initially,

¶37

¶38

based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Crime No.55 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. The investigating agency, after considering the medical evidence, filed the final report adding the offence under Section 32.6 of the IPC in addition to the other offences. The Investigating Officer, along with the final report, enclosed all relevant documents, including the medical reports of the victims. Hence, the ingredients of Section 326 of the Ipc are attracted against the petitioners, and therefbre, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶39

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, including the final report/charge sheet, it reveals that LW.2 sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the petitioners, and LWs.l, 4 and 5 also sustained injuries. Hence, this court is of the considered view that, primafacie, the offence under Section 326 of the IPC is attracted against the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence, and whether respondent No.2/de-facto complainant sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioners, have

¶40

¶41

Therefore, this case does not fall within the ambit of Section 482 of

¶42

the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings.

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

¶44

case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4 in C.C.No.169 of 2021 on the fiIe of

¶45

the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jadcherla.

¶46

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed

¶47

Pending miscellaneous applications, if ar), shall stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

. Sd/. C. DEEPIKA SISTANT

/TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial First Class^{Magistrateat Jadcherla}

¶54

The Station House^{Officer, Batanagar Police Station, Mahabubnagar}

¶55

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad. IOUTI

¶56

One CC to M/s.^{Chandrasen Law Offices, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri Rapolu^{Bhaskar, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶58

Two CD Copies

d .,

I I I I

HIGH COURT

JSR, J

DATEDi 1211112025

ORDER

1 t S rA 't,,c
7.
L) O B JAN 7[2b !''t
.^_,
t

¶67

CRLP.No.7484 of 2023

¶68

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶69

v<br>,'t/
10

Sri. Chinna Bandhyala Thirupathi Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chinna Bandhyala Thirupathi Reddy, 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

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

B. Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Vs Syed Sayeed Hussain , Lamba Hussain , Lamba

State of Telangana, Rep by Pp, High Court at Hyd., Vs Konda Bala Swamy, Hanwada and Anr.