APHC010052692023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 875/2023 Between: 1. CHILLA KURU MOHAN REDDY, S/O MUNI KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O RAGHU RANI REDDY STREET, OPPOSITE APOLLO HOSPITAL, ADITYA NAGAR, NELLORE CITY. 2. DADDOLU PAVAN TEJA ,, S/O RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO-25-3-555, 10TH STREET, LAKE VIEW COLONY, NELLORE CITY.DADDOLU PAVAN TEJA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATHI, 2. VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY YELLA, S/O LATE RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 24-2-1883, FLAT NO.3, SIDDI VINAYAKA RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS ROAD, MAGUNTA LAYOUT, NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of BNSS, praying that, in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of the Criminal Petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash 2 SUN, J Crlp_875_2023 C.C.No.2314 of 2022 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, and pass appropriate orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of BNSS, praying that, in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of the Criminal Petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.2314 of 2022 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition, and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crlp_875_2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION No.875 OF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2314 of 2022 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the petitioners, in substance, is that the first petitioner is the General Power of Attorney holder of Vijaya Lakshmi, who claims to be the absolute owner of the land situated in Survey Nos.340/2/1A and 340/2/1B1 of Magunta Layout, Kondayyapalem Area, Nellore. The said Vijaya Lakshmi is stated to have purchased the property under registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.8340 of 2019, dated 04.09.2019, and 450 of 2020, dated 15.07.2020. As the title to the property was disputed by Balaji Hotels, the first petitioner, representing the said owner, instituted O.S.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore, seeking declaration of title. According to the petitioners, the dispute regarding title and possession is therefore essentially civil in nature and is already the subject matter of adjudication before the competent civil Court. 3. It is further contended that, on the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dargamitta Police Station, the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer initiated proceedings on 24.02.2021 restraining both parties from entering the disputed property. The petitioners contend that the said proceedings were subsequently withdrawn/cancelled by the Tahsildar. It is their specific case that the revenue proceedings do not survive and that the continuation of the criminal case, in the 4 SUN, J Crlp_875_2023 backdrop of the pending civil dispute and the withdrawal of the revenue proceedings, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Soma Harinadh Reddy and Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the complaint are an offshoot of the existing property dispute and that the criminal law is being set in motion to exert pressure in what is substantially a dispute relating to title and possession and that the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submits that the petitioners committed the offences alleged against them, they attempted to interfere with and grab the disputed property, the acts attributed to the petitioners created a threat to the security guard and peaceful possession of the respondent No.2 and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings are justified. Further, the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar had issued proceedings restraining the parties from entering the disputed property and having failed to obtain any order from the Court, petitioners cannot contend that their conduct was lawful. It is therefore argued that the disputed questions of possession and the allegations of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation require consideration during trial and that the proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold. 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also opposed the petition, contending that the allegations in the complaint disclose cognizable offences and that the investigation culminated in filing of the charge sheet, the correctness of the rival claims regarding title and possession cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. 5 SUN, J Crlp_875_2023 8. As seen from the record, the first petitioner had already instituted O.S.No.40 of 2020 against Balaji Hotels Enterprises Private Limited, Nellore, respondent No.2 and LW.2/Y.Mallikarjuna Reddy, senior citizen, seeking declaration of title in respect of the subject property. The said suit is stated to be pending before the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore. The alleged incident, according to respondent No.2, occurred subsequent to the institution of the said civil proceedings. The criminal case in Crime No.05 of 2021 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The material on record further shows that the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar had initiated proceedings in relation to the disputed property and had restrained both parties from entering the property. The petitioners specifically rely upon the subsequent withdrawal/cancellation of those proceedings. Even assuming that the petitioners did not obtain any order from the Court at the relevant point of time, that circumstance, by itself, cannot establish the ingredients of criminal trespass or criminal intimidation. 10. The allegations of respondent No.2 have to be examined in the light of the admitted background that the parties are litigating over the property and that the first petitioner has already approached the competent civil Court seeking declaration of title. The question as to which party has a better title or lawful right to possession is a matter for adjudication by the competent civil Court. The criminal Court cannot be converted into a forum for deciding such disputed questions of title and possession merely by giving a criminal colour to the dispute 11. At the same time, the mere existence of a civil dispute does not, as a matter of law, bar criminal proceedings if the allegations independently disclose the commission of a criminal offence. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether, on the allegations and material placed on record, the 6 SUN, J Crlp_875_2023 essential ingredients of Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code are made out against the petitioners. 12. Section 448 of the Code applies when the requirements of house-trespass are satisfied. Section 506 provides punishment for criminal intimidation, which necessarily requires an allegation of threat with the intention contemplated by Section 503 of the Code. The material placed before this Court, when considered as a whole, does not disclose specific and legally sufficient particulars showing that the petitioners committed house-trespass with the requisite criminal intent or that they issued a threat amounting to criminal intimidation in the manner contemplated by law. General allegations arising out of a property dispute, without the necessary factual particulars constituting the ingredients of the offences, cannot by themselves justify continuation of criminal proceedings. 13. The contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioners were attempting to grab the property and thereby threatened the security guard of the respondent No.2 is essentially connected with the rival claims regarding possession and title. Those rival claims are already the subject matter of civil adjudication. 14. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court ordinarily proceeds on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying it and does not conduct a detailed enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. However, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, or where continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 15. The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction were authoritatively explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and 7 SUN, J Crlp_875_2023 Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others1. Among the recognised categories are cases where the allegations, taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence; where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected do not disclose the commission of an offence; where the allegations are inherently improbable; where there is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings; and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is instituted with an ulterior motive. 16. The present case falls within the permissible parameters of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The material placed on record, even if accepted at its face value, does not furnish sufficient factual foundation to establish the essential ingredients of Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code. The dispute concerning the property, including the rival claims of title and possession, is predominantly civil in character and is already pending adjudication before the competent civil Court. The continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the circumstances of the case, would serve no legitimate criminal-law purpose and would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used for adjudicating a civil property dispute. 17. This Court is conscious that the power under Section 482 of the Code is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Court is not recording any final finding regarding the title or lawful possession of the subject property, nor is it expressing any opinion on the merits of O.S.No.40 of 2020. The observations made herein are confined only to the question whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2314 of 2022 disclose the commission of the offences alleged so as to warrant their continuation. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case constituting the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code against 1 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 SUN, J Crlp_875_2023 the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2. Continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.2314 of 2022 would therefore amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners are accordingly entitled to the relief sought. 19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2314 of 2022 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 22-09-2026 SSA/ knl