High Court’s Decision on Criminal Trespass Case
In a significant legal development, the Telangana High Court has declined to quash criminal charges against prominent actors D Venkatesh, Rana Daggubati, his father D Suresh Babu, and others regarding a contentious property dispute in Hyderabad. The case, formally cited as D Suresh Babu v. State of Telangana, involves allegations of criminal trespass and other charges.
Allegations and Legal Proceedings
Justice N Tukaramji, presiding over the matter, determined that the accusations contained within the complaint presented a prima facie case, meriting further investigation. The charges include criminal trespass, unlawful dispossession, theft, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy. The court emphasized, “Since the complaint, the sworn statements, and the supporting material disclose a prima facie case warranting further enquiry, and as several disputed questions of fact arise for adjudication during trial, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the threshold.”
Background of the Case
The legal action originated from a complaint filed by businessman K Nandukumar. He accused D Suresh Babu, actors D Venkatesh and Rana Daggubati, along with others, of facilitating the demolition of structures on his leased premises with the aid of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) officials. Nandukumar contended that the accused unlawfully entered the property, broke open doors, removed belongings, and forcibly evicted him and his family.
Arguments and Court’s Findings
The accused petitioned the High Court to dismiss the case, claiming the matter was primarily civil, revolving around leasehold rights. They argued Nandukumar’s complaint criminalized what was essentially a property dispute. Furthermore, they highlighted that the complaint was lodged nearly a year post-incident, no GHMC officials were charged, and no stolen items were recovered.
Nandukumar countered, asserting his valid registered lease rights and protection under civil court injunctions at the time of the alleged events. He pointed out that the accused had admitted in prior civil proceedings to regaining possession post-GHMC demolition, without a formal eviction order.
More Read
The court observed that the presence of a parallel civil dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings if the allegations independently constitute cognizable offenses. “Where the allegations in the complaint independently disclose the essential ingredients of cognizable criminal offences, the existence of a parallel civil dispute cannot operate as a legal bar to criminal prosecution,” the court noted.
Conclusion and Future Proceedings
Justice Tukaramji asserted that key questions, such as the alleged unlawful dispossession despite an injunction and admissions in civil proceedings, are factual disputes requiring trial resolution. The court dismissed the petition by Daggubati and others but clarified that the accused could present their defenses during the trial.
Legal representation in the case included Advocate Raghuram for the petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor Syed Yasar Mamoon for the State, and Advocate Venugopal Julakanti for the complainant.
