Padamati Suman Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

134441

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Padamati Suman Reddy,S/o. Mahipal Reddy Aged about 3t years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-30, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONEWACCUSED No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Kasireddy Shekar Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy Aged about 64 years, Occ. Business, Fi/o. Plot No.A4, Road No.11, Co-operative Bank Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO -COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in proceedings C.C.No.2B4 of 2023 in Crime No.135B of 2022 of P.S. Hayathnagar, Rachakonda, on the fi{e of the XIV-Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at. Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District for the offence U/Sec.1 47, 427 , 506, 120 (B) IPC and quash the same.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.2B4 of 2023 in Crime No.135B of 2022 of P.S. Hayathnagar, Rachakonda, on the file of the XIV-Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at. Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District for the offence U/Sec.'147, 427, 506,120 (B) IPC pending disposal of criminal petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. RAMESHWAR RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veerasmalla the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared forthe Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

.:?

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN( iANA AT HYDERABAD

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI :ADA

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10 of 2026

Date:06.01.2026

Between:

Padamati Suman Reddy

retitioner

AND

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

¶29

...Res rondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52 8 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short^'BNS S') by the petitioneriaccused No.2 seeking to quash the rroceedings against him in C,C.No.284 of 2023 on the file of :arned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at layatnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶32

Heard Sri M.Rameshwar Rao learned < cunsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learne I Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 I ;tate

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted :l at accused No.l,sold the property to accused No.2 and that accr sed No.2 is

¶34

2

¶35

a bona fide purchaser. When he is the owner of the property, he cannot be alleged to be a trespasser on the subject land. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶36

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.1 sold the property to the de facfo complainant and thereafter sold it again to accused No.2, and thus the dispute arose between the two. The allegations prima facie point out that the petitioner has trespassed into the land of the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶37

Perused the record.

¶38

The contents of the complaint and the recitals in the charge sheet point out the allegations against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 447, 427,506, and 120(B) of the IPC LWs.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses whose evidence needs to be tested during the course of the trial. Thus, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this juncture. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to dispense with lhe presence of the petitioner before the trial Court.

¶39