1. This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in FIR No. 46 of 2025, dated 04.03.2025, of P.S. Huzurnnagar, Suryapet, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 331(3) and 305 of BNS.
2. Heard Mr. P. Raja Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State, and Mr. Gundaram Manoj Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the registration of FIR No. 46 of 2025 is a clear abuse of the process of law, as the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are false and frivolous. It is contended that petitioner No. 2 is a Grade-I contractor, and he had taken the subject godown on lease from its owner, late Pashya Pulla Reddy, for storing construction material in relation to the contract work (IPDS Scheme work) of the TSSPDCL. It is contended that after completion of the contract work, the petitioner No.2 had vacated the premises in March, 2022 after clearing the entire rental dues in the presence of the deceased owner's sons, while shifting his own material to another godown at Visakhapatnam.
3.1. It is contended that respondent No. 2 - complainant has no manner of right, title, or interest over the said godown or the material allegedly stored therein and, therefore, lacks locus to allege theft against the petitioners. Learned counsel contends that respondent No. 2 was only an employee of late Pulla Reddy and, after the latter's demise, respondent No.2 attempted to illegally demand rent from petitioner No. 2 under the guise of adjusting alleged debts, and petitioner No.2 refused such demand.
3.2. It is contended that respondent No. 2 trespassed into the residence of petitioner No. 2, threatened his wife, whereupon the wife of petitioner No.2 filed a complaint against respondent No.2 which was registered as FIR No. 261 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC after a preliminary enquiry and verification of CCTV footage and apartment records.
3.3. It is contended that the present complaint is nothing but a retaliatory counterblast intended to pressurize the petitioners into withdrawing the earlier criminal case and to harass them.
3.4. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner No. 1, a TGSRTC employee, has been falsely implicated solely because he is the elder brother of petitioner No. 2 and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged transaction. It is also contended that the police have mechanically registered the FIR without conducting any preliminary enquiry or verifying the true facts and that, if the allegations regarding breaking open the godown and theft were genuine, the owner of the godown or his legal heirs would have been the natural complainants.
3.5. Learned counsel contends that even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 331(3) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, there being no material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners.
3.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon the judgment in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947).
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies on the judgments in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal ((2007) 12 SCC 1) and contends that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution, and such powers may be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor refers to Paragraph 27 of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) wherein it was held as follows:
“The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.”
4.2. It is contended that in the instant case, LWs. 1 and 2 were examined, and the complaint’s statement was recorded and further investigation is in progress, and therefore the Court at this stage cannot go into the question as to whether the offences alleged in the FIR were made out or not, the statutory power of the Police to investigate the matter cannot be interfered with in exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023).
4.3. Reliance is also placed in State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju ((2006) 6 SCC 728), Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj ((1994) 2 SCC 277), S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat ((2001) 7 SCC 659), and State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh (1987 (Supp) SCC 89).
5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, at the outset, it is to be noted that pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, an FIR No. 46 of 2025 was registered against the petitioners.
5.1. It is relevant to note the statement of respondent No.2/complainant (Samula Siddartha Reddy)which reads as follows:
“Samula Siddartha Reddy and Pulla Reddy executed an electrical contract work of TSSPDCL by establishing a firm under the name and style of Sri Ganesh Enterprises, and the contract work was completed on 31.03.2019, and the respondent No.2 worked as Supervisor in the said contract work, and after completion of the work, the respondent No.2 kept the unused remaining items, and conductors in the Godown of Pullareddy located in Teachers Colony, and Pullareddy sold the Godown to the sons of SamulaVenkatreddy, namely Somula Mohan Reddy and and Vinod Reddy, and the said sons of SamulaVenkatreddy used to get a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month, and the monetary value of the conductor would be around Rs.2,00,000/-, and after the demise of Pullareddy, the respondent No.2 did not verify/check about the conductor”.
5.2. The Statement of the complainant (respondent No.2) further reads as follows:
“on 04.03.2025, respondent No.2 went to the Godown for conductor, and he found that the doors were broke open and the 55 sq.mm conductor has been taken away by some unknown persons, and when respondent No.2 enquired about the same, he came to know that one Mallireddy Satyanarayana Reddy, of Miryalaguda, with the help of his brother Mallireddy Ranga Reddy, took away the conductor, and therefore respondent No.2 requested the Police to take action on the said persons as they had taken away the conductor without informing respondent No.2.”
6. From a perusal of the statement of respondent No.2/complainant, it can be seen that, after completion of the electrical contract work on31.03.2019, the respondent No.2 kept the unused electrical items, including the subject 55 sq. mm conductor, in Pullareddy's godown. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 did not verify or check the availability of the 55 sq. mm conductor in the godown.Subsequently, Pullareddy sold the godown to the sons of SamulaVenkatreddy and thereafter passed away. Even after the demise of Pullareddy, respondent No. 2 did not verify the availability of the 55 sq. mm conductor.However, on 04.03.2025, respondent No. 2 allegedly visited the godown and found that its doors had been broken open. He also allegedly found that the 55 sq. mm conductor was missing and alleged that it had been stolen by unidentified persons. Upon making enquiries, respondent No. 2 came to know that the petitioners herein had broken open the doors of the godown and stolen the 55 sq. mm conductor. He further stated that the value of the conductor was approximately Rs. 2 lakh and, therefore, requested the police to take action against the petitioners for removing the conductor without his knowledge and committing theft.
7. The record reveals that, in the year 2023, the wife of petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint against respondent No. 2, which was registered as FIR No. 261 of 2023, alleging offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The present complaint, registered as FIR No. 46 of 2025, has been filed by respondent No. 2 against petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1, who is stated to be the brother of petitioner No. 2 and an employee of TGSRTC, has also been implicated in the said complaint, without any basis.
8. From a perusal of the complaint, it is to be seen that except a self-serving statement/allegation by respondent No. 2 that he kept the said electrical conductor in the godown, there is no reliable material to establish that he had, in fact, kept the said conductor in the godown in the first place.
8.1. In ordinary course of life, when a premises is rented out to others, the belongings of the owner of the premises are moved out, unless it is mutually agreed by the owner and the tenant, to let a particular item of the owner be kept in the premises being rented out. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioners that they took the godown premises on rent from late Pulla Reddy, and there is no reliable evidence to infer that the electrical conductor continued to exist in the godown even after renting out the godown to the petitioners. Later, Pulla Reddy sold the premises to the sons of Samula Venkat Reddy, and the status of electrical conductorat that time of sale / purchase of the godown is not known. After sale of godown, Pulla Reddy passed away, and then also the status of electrical conductor is not known, and it is the specific statement of the complainant that he did not verify/check the availability of the conductor after Pulla reddy passed away. On account of change of ownership, the petitioners paid the monthly rents to the new owner, and later the petitioners vacated the godown.
8.2. Several developments have admittedly taken place during the intervening period, i.e., from 2019 to 2025. In the absence ofproperlyrecordedinformation or reliable evidence with regard to the presence/absence of the subject electrical conductor, at the relevant point of time, setting criminal law into motion merely basing on self-serving oral assertions of the complainant, that too when he himself stated that he never verified the availability of the subject electrical conductor from 2019 until it was allegedly stolen from the godown. The allegations made by the complainant are vaguein nature and do not inspire confidence.
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), wherein it was held as follows:
“16. It is by now well settled that summoning any person on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is something very serious. This would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous and vexatious allegations are levelled.
17. The duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., reported as 2023 SC OnLine SC 951. We may refer to the following observations:
“34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because eonce the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation….”
10. In light of the law laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), it is to be noted that, in the instant case, upon the alleged threatening of respondent No.2 demanding rents from the petitioners for the godown in question, the wife of petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint against respondent No. 2/complainant, which was registered as FIR No. 261 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed the present complaint against petitioner No. 2 and also implicated petitioner No. 1 therein, without any basis.
11. As can be seen from the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the very assertion of the complainant that he never checked or verified the availability of the alleged 55 sq. mm electrical conductor, which was allegedly stolen, raises serious doubts. Further, the date and time of the alleged theft is not known, as it is the complainant's own version that he visited the godown on 04.03.2025 and found that the doors of the godown had been broken open. Even according to the complainant, it is not known when the doors were broken open or who had broken them open. Further, there is no reliable evidentiary material on record to infer that the complainant had, in fact, kept the alleged electrical conductor in the godown, in the first place, after completion of the electrical contract work way back in 2019, as the complaint speaks about only two individuals with regard to electrical conductor in 2019. Further, there is no reliable evidentiary material executed, throughout the different relevant points of time, from the individuals concerned, i.e., either Pullareddy, or the petitioners, or the sons of Venkat reddy, to reliably infer about the existence of the alleged electrical conductor in the godown from 2019 to 2025.
12. A period of five to six years is a considerable length of time. When the very safekeeping of the alleged 55 sq. mm electrical conductor by respondent No. 2 himself in the godown, as well as the continued existence and availability of the alleged electrical conductor in the premises after it was allegedly kept there, despite renting out the premises, despite subsequent sale of the godown, despite the passing away of the previous owner Pulla Reddy, and other intervening events, being matters of serious doubt, the continuation of prosecution against the petitioners on the basis of such vague allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the FIR No. 46 of 2025, dated 04.03.2025, registered by Police Station Huzurnagar, Suryapet, against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed, and FIR No. 46 of 2025, dated 04.03.2025, registered by Police Station Huzurnagar, Suryapet, is hereby quashed. All miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
