1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.591 of 2026 of Jagadgirigutta Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 126(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(1)(r),(s),(za(C)) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SCs/STs Act’).
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. On 25.04.2026 at 14:00 hours, received a complainant from respondent No.2 stating that the Dalits and economically weaker sections of the village of Shamshiguda are filing this complaint regarding the grave injustices, caste discrimination, denial of temple entry and humiliation being committed in Shilpa Brindavan Colony under Kukatpally. Although the final layout of Shilpa Brindavan Colony was approved by HMDA, no space was allotted for the construction of a temple anywhere in that layout. However, some influential people, using their political and financial influence, illegally occupied Government land in the colony and built a temple worth crores of rupees on the land, without obtaining any permissions from the GHMC Planning Department. Even though the farmers of their village had previously given their lands for the development of the colony, they are currently being denied entry into the temple built in the same area. This is a grave insult to them and a sign of untouchability. The people of Shilpa Brindavan Colony have erected barricades on both sides and are completely blocking the entry, preventing anyone from entering. They were not allowed to enter the temple even during Vaikuntha Ekadashi, Brahmotsavams and Sri Ramanavami festivals in the month of March, particularly on 29.03.2026, when they went to the back gate and requested permission to participate in the Sitarama Kalyanam and procession, the association members i.e., the petitioners, hurled at them with extremely vulgar language in the name of caste, threatened them, insulted them and threw them out. The eyewitnesses to the incident were M. Linga Rao, K. Satyanarayana, Niranjan (Mahankali Nagar), and Ramesh (Mahankali Nagar). Not allowing them into the lands where their village people roamed freely until 2003, preventing them from even seeing God, and insulting them in the name of caste are against the Indian Constitution, human rights, and laws. They submitted a petition to the SC commission in March. In it, they told about the caste discrimination they were facing. Therefore, they are requesting that take legal action on above matter. Basing upon the said complaint, Crime No.591 of 2026 was registered against the petitioners.
3. Heard Mr. Krupachand Gogineni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Nadella Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioners are owners of residential plots situated in ‘Shilpa Brindavan’, an approved layout, admeasuring Ac.21.00 gts. in Shamshiguda Village, developed with due permissions obtained from the competent authorities. The layout was developed by the promoters, who constructed residential duplex houses therein. The petitioners are lawful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. He further submitted that the developer, petitioners and other plot owners of Shilpa Brindavan, with their own funds, constructed a temple known as ‘Shree Kodanda Rama Swamy Vaari Devasthanam’ (for short, ‘the Temple’) within the limits of Shilpa Brindavan layout, and no Government land was encroached upon for its construction, as alleged in the complaint.
4.2. He further submitted that the petitioners never prevented respondent No.2 or any other persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes from entering the Temple. Respondent No.2 has made false allegations in the complaint that the petitioners have not permitted respondent No.2 and other persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community during Brahmotsavalu, especially on 29.03.2026 and the same are not true and correct. The petitioners never obstructed or prevented any person, including respondent No.2, from entering the Temple. He also submitted that the Brahmotsavalu were conducted between 08.03.2026 and 13.03.2026, Shree Rama Navami was performed on 27.03.2026, and no such programme was held in the Temple on 29.03.2026, as alleged by respondent No.2 in the complaint. .
4.3. He further submitted that when respondent No.2 and others attempted to make unauthorized constructions by trespassing upon the land situated in Sy.Nos.39, 41, 50 and 51 of Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, one S.S Raju, lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 and others. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.1358 of 2024 was registered on 27.10.2024 before the Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS.
4.4. He further submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the affairs of the Temple and the question of preventing respondent No.2 or any other person does not arise. He also submitted that Mr. Devapangal Babu, who is working as caretaker of the Temple, Mr. Miryala Anand and Mr. Miryala Ramchander, residents of Shilpa Brindavan belonging to Scheduled Caste community, have filed their sworn affidavits, which were notarized, wherein they stated that the Managing Committee of the Temple or any other person never prevented the devotees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tributes community from entering the Temple. They also stated that the devotees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes regularly visit the Temple and offer prayers without any restriction. He further submitted that one Mr. Peddinti Sathya Sai Ram Gopla Pavan, who is serving as a Poojari of the Temple, has also filed a notarized sworn affidavit stating that the devotees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes regularly visit the Temple and participate in Poojas and other religious functions without any restriction or objection from any corner. He further submitted that Mr. Chandan Chaube and Mr. Suryansh Singh Bargahi, who are working as Security Gaurds in Shilpa Brindavan colony, have also filed notarized sworn affidavits stating that neither they nor any other person have never prevented any devotee belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from entering the Temple. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint only with an intention to encroach upon the open land situated adjacent to the Shilpa Brindavan layout.
4.5. He further submitted that in W.P.No.4031 of 2026, the Commissioner of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) filed a counter-affidavit stating that HYDRAA had erected fencing and installed a board over the subject land. Upon conducting a survey with reference to the Village Map of Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, it was found that the said land does not fall within Sy.No.57, but instead falls in Sy.Nos.25, 27 and 53. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5208, 3778 and 4031 of 2026 do not claim any right, title, or interest in Sy.Nos.25, 27 and 53, and as such, any claim made in respect of the said land is wholly untenable and misconceived.
4.6 He further submitted that O.S.Nos.12 and 39 of 2026 are pending before the competent Civil Courts and pertain to interference with the layout and the property in question as alleged in the complaint. When the Civil Suits are pending before the competent Civil Courts, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint by giving a criminal colour.
4.7. He further submitted that the police, without conducting a preliminary enquiry, mechanically registered the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 and proceeding with the investigation and the same is not permitted under law. He further submitted that the petitioners have not abused respondent No.2 or any other person in the name of their caste nor prevented them from entering the Temple. Respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint at the instance of others to claim rights over the land in Sy.Nos.18, 36, 37 and 41 of Shamshiguda Village, which is adjacent northern boundary of Shilpa Brindavan layout. When respondent No.2 and his close associates trying to interfere with the property of Shilpa Brindavan layout, a complaint was lodged against respondent No.2 and others on 19.04.2026 before the Station House Officer, Jagadgiri Gutta Police Station, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint by making omnibus allegations against the petitioners, as a counterblast to the said complaint. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 29.03.2026, whereas respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 25.04.2026, without assigning any reasons for the delay in the lodging the complaint. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioners prevented respondent No.2 and other persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from entering the Temple and they abused in the name of their caste and the said incident was occurred in public view. The petitioner also constructed the Temple by encroaching upon Government land and barricades were erected to restrict access and preventing respondent No.2 and others to use the colony roads.
5.2. The pendency of the Civil Suits in O.S.Nos.12 and 39 of 2026 has nothing to do with the present complaint. The present complaint is only in respect of abusing respondent No.2 and others in the name of their caste and prevented him and other persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from entering the Temple as well as Shilpa Brindavan Colony roads.
5.3. He further submitted that as per the provision of Section 18A of the SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, no preliminary enquiry or approval is required before registration of the crime/F.I.R. and the criminal petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
6. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1:
6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that they restrained respondent No.2 and other persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from entering the Temple and also prevented them from using the road in Shilpa Brindavan and abused and insulted respondent No.2 and others in the name of their caste. The said allegations attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 126(2) and 352 of the BNS and Section 3(1)(r),(s),(za(C)) of the SCs/STs Act.
6.2. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3. LW.1 is respondent No.2 and LWs.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses. The alleged incident occurred in a place within the meaning of public view. The investigation is under progress and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at threshold and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 25.04.2026 against the petitioners stating that when respondent No.2 and other persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes trying to attend Vaikunta Ekadash and Brahmothsavalu as well as Sri Rama Navamifestival, which were held in March 2026, the petitioners prevented them. On 29.03.2026, when respondent No.2 and others trying to participate in the procession of Sri Ramachandra Swamy held on 29.03.2026, the petitioners obstructed them, intentionally insulted and abused them in the name of their caste and prevented them from participating in the Temple activities. It was alleged that the Temple had been constructed by encroaching upon Government land and barricades have been erected and that the petitioners were not permitting them either to enter the Temple or to use the colony roads situated in Shilpa Brindavan.
8. There are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioners intentionally insulted and abused respondent No.2 and other members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the name of their caste and prevented them from entering into the Temple and from participating in the Temple programmes. The said incident occurred in a public place and was within the meaning of ‘public view’. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has already recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3, of whom, LWs.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident and the investigation is under progress.
9. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true; whether any such procession was held on 29.03.2026; whether the petitioners abused respondent No.2 and other persons in the name of their caste; and whether they prevented them from entering the Temple or prevented them to use the colony roads of Shilpa Brindavan, are all disputed questions of the facts, which can only be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress.
10. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police mechanically registered the crime, without conducting a preliminary enquiry, is not tenable under law, in view of the provision of Section 18A of the SCs/STs Act, which envisages that no preliminary enquiry is required for registration of the F.I.R. in respect of the offences under the provisions of the SCs/STs Act.
11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that O.S.No.12 and 39 of 2026 are pending before the competent Civil Courts pertaining to interference of layout and property in question alleged in the complaint and respondent No.2 filed complaint at the instance of parties to the suits as well as to settle the civil disputes pending before the various Courts by giving criminal colour and the same is abuse of the process of law, are not tenable under law on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that prevented respondent No.2 and others from entering the Temple and also prevented them to use colony roads. Mere pendency of the civil proceedings is not a bar to prosecute the accused under the penal provisions, especially when the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
12. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly. The said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others((2021) 19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasized that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage.
13. It is already stated supra that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that they abused respondent No.2 and others in the name of their caste, intentionally insulted them and voluntarily obstructed them from entering the preventing them to use public roads of Shilpa Brindavan Colony. The above said allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and the investigation is under progress. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in F.I.R.No.591of 2026 at this stage by exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.
14. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
15. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
