Sri Anand Kumar Dubbaka v. State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Judgment date: 2026-03-10

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-10. Sri Anand Kumar Dubbaka v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH SIX TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT DEVI EADA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA 2023 CRIMINAL P ETITION NO : 4906 oF Between: S/o late D. Natarala Chary' age: 53 years, occ 1, Sri Anand Kumar Dubbaka, Goldsmith. 2. Sri Pramod Kumar Dubbaka, S/o D Anand Kumar' age 27 years' Occ Goldsmith. Both are R/o. H. No. 8-2-521 , Kummariguda, Secunderabad' No'1 and 2' ... Petitioners/Accused AND High Court of by Public Prosecutor' 1 State of Telangana, represented Telangana, HYderabad 47 years, Occ S/o Late D' Nataraja' age: 2 Sri Dubbaka Naveen Kumar, Goldsmith, r to. 8-2-521, Kunimariguda, Secunderabad' ... ResPondents PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr-P,Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin to Crimrnal Pet(ion, the High Colt maY^19.! ]:1t* the Memorandum of Grounds of 139/2020 dated arising from FIR No. qr". n tn.

c c ruo 2883/20 dated 15-10-2020 at looe-ioio pending before the XXil Additionat chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the complaint made Uy uart<et, Secunderabad on SlorJ"raoja, regiitered e. S. the 2nd respondent. t. A . NO: 1 OF 2025 PetitionUndersection528ofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin peiition, tne High Court may be pleased to of Criminal the Mlmorandum of Groundi of the Petitioner bill, electricity bills, passport' photos receive documents, i. e. , gas 4096 of 2023' herein in the above CRLP No. l. A. NO: 'l OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P C praying that in the circumstances stated tn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings rn pursuance of C. C. No. 2BB3l20 dated 15-10-2020 arising from FIR No 139/2020 dated 30-09-2020 on the file of XXll Additional Chief Ivletropolrtan I\/agistrate at Secunderabad includrng appearance of the Petitioners/A- 1 and 2 herein.

pendrng disposal of Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and uprrn hearing the arguments of Sri G. Subash, learned counsel representing l\,4rs A Anasuya, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Pr-rblic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. l and of Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TEI. ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITI ON No. 4906 of 2023 DATE OF ORDER:10. 03. 2026 Between: Sri Anand Kumar Dubbaka & another ... PetitionersiAccused Nos. 1 & 2 AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another .. . Respondents ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P. C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 & 2 in C. C. No.

2883 of 2020, on the file of the learned XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448,427 and 506 of lPC. 2. Heard Sri G. Subash, learned counsel representing well Smt. A. Anasuya, learned counsel on record for the petitioners as as Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Jagini Venkata Naga Raju, learned counsel on record for respondent No. 2. Ir I l). J ( rl I'\o tt\)6 l0ll 3. The case of pi-osecution is that the de facto complainanulwl is staying in 2"' floor of H No. B-2-521, Kummariguda, Secunderabad and that accused No. 1 , who is his own brother, stays in ihe ground floor of sanre addre,ss and that the said property belongs to their father. lt is alleged that on 24. 09. 2020 at about 16. 00 hours, in the absence of LW1 , both the accused Nos.

1 & 2 illegally trespassed into the house of LIA/1, damaged his Almarah, valuable items and thro,"vn away all the irousehold articles and that they abused and threaLened i\. V I witlr Crre conseguences_ 4. Learned periircner's counsel submitted that the allegations are false and that when lhe de facto complainant alleges that the offence was committed in iris abserrce, he cannot allege that the accused threatened him with dire consequences. He further submitted that notice under Section 41-A was served on them on 27. 1O. ZOZO while ,,vas the charge sheet filecj on 151O. 2O20 which is much prior in time That means that charge sheet itself is manipulated and that the F)olice are hanc-in-glove with the de facto complainant_ The date of offence is 2,1. A9. 202O while the complaint is lodged on 30. 09. 2020 lf at a:l the alleged incident has occurred, the de facto complainant woulrl not have kept quiet for a period of six days.

He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. J L:ID,J ( rl I' No 4906 2021 5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that there are property disputes between both the parties and when the de facto complainant went out, his belongings were thrown away and that inspite of the door being locked, they have removed door itself and have damaged the interiors in the house of de facto complainant. He further submitted that whatever defence the petitioners want to take, they may raise the same before the Trial Court. But pendency of civil dispute cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the offence is prima facle made out against the petitioners. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the de facto complainant and the accused No. 1 are brothers and there are property disputes between both the parties.

lt is alleged that in the absence of de facto complainant, the accused have trespassed into his portion and thrown away the articles in the house. The statements of tenants, who reside in the same premises, are recorded by the prosecution and they are listed as LWs 3 to 5. Their evidence need to be tested during the course of trial. lt is borne out by record that Partition Suit vide O. S. No. 213 of 2018 was pending before the Trial Court for ad. iudication. The statements of LWs 3 to 5 are in support of the case of the de facto -eomplainant. . 1 l_lD. l Crl I No. 1906 201. r B. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that trespass cannot be alleged against co-owner and that since he is the brother of the de facto complatnant. trespass cannot be alleged against him and the property was acquired by their father and that he too has a right over the property. Admittedly, both of them are residing in their respective po(ions in the subject property i. e. , H. No.

B_2 _521 at Kummariguda Secunderabad. But the allegations point out that in the absence of LWl, accused Nos. 1 & 2 removed the door of the portion in which LW1 is residing and has meddled with the articles inside the house. l-hus, the allegations point out prima facie offence of trespass against the petitioners herein. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out only after a full_ fledged trial. 9. Learned petitioners' counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in URMTLA DEV| & OTHERS Vs. BALRAM & ANOTHERI wherern the Apex Court heid as under:- "ln Anand Kumar l\,4ohatta, this Court whrlst quashrng the FIR and charge sheet thr-. rern, highlighted the Following words of thls Court in State of Karnatzrka v. L. Munrswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699, that describe the fundarnental principle ior exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr PC. : gt:, 'zo2l rwsc ) I'I'D,] Crl l'. No4906 2023 "7.

... ln the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court B entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The sawng of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. ln a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify lhe High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. " (underlining by us) 9. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the accused-appellants herein are made out.

The instant case is just another one in a string of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civll dispute as criminal. The complaint case against the accused-appellants has been pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve any purpose. The observations made by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia inform our decisron and the iudgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 extracted above, squarely apply to the facts ol this case. ln our view, it is in the interest of tustice that present proceedings be quashed. " But in the present case, the allegations point out prima facie offence against the petitioners. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CENTRAL BUREAU OF I-tl). 1 (,1P No 4906 20l l INVESTIGATION Vs.

ARVIND KHANNA2 wherein, the Apex Court at Paras 1 7 & 1B held as under:- '17. Afler perusing the tmpugned order and on hearing the . subrnisslons rtace by the learned Senior Counsel on both . srdes, we are of the vEW that the impugncd order passed by the High Courl i. ; not sustanable. ln a petition filed under Section 482 Cr P C. , the High Coutl has recorded findings on several disputed lacts and allowed the petition Defence of the accused rs Io be tested after appreciatng the evidence during trtal. Ihe very fact that the High Cour7, in thls case, went into the most minute detals. on the allegattons made by the appellant CBI anl the defence put forlh by the respondent, led us to a conclusian that the High Courl has exceeded its power, while exercsing its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr PC. 18. ln our view, fhe assessmenl made by the High Court at thls sfage, wher, the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.

" The Apex Court has emphasized on the contours of the power of High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. Applying the said principle and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not proper to quash the proceedings in the present case. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the Trial Courl 11 . Hence, the Oriminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 & 2 before the Trial Court ' 1zols1 lo Supreme Court Cases 680 EID. J (il P No 4906 2021 provided that the petitioners are represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that they shall be present before the Trial Court whenever their presence is specifically required during the course of trial.

Since the present CC pertains lo 2020, in view of the Circular instructions issued by the High Court time and again reiterating and emphasizing to prioritize disposal of matters pending for more than 5 years, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. 12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRA --7 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan [/agistrat e t ecunderabad 1 The Station House Officer, Market Police Station, erabad 2 . > Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 4 One CC to Mrs. A Anasuya, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate [OPUCI b Two CD Copies GNK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1010312026 STHES 14 o t o ORDER u( 4 |'1rq 2026 t CRLP. No. 4906 of 2023 t t DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0 . , v,b I

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.