Telangana HC refuses to quash criminal trespass case against actors Rana Daggubati, D Venkatesh

The Telangana High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against actors D Venkatesh, Rana Daggubati, his father and film producer D Suresh Babu in a dispute over the possession of a property in Hyderabad [D Suresh Babu v. State of Telangana].

Justice N Tukaramji held that the complaint against them contained prima facie allegations of criminal trespass, unlawful dispossession, theft, criminal intimidation and conspiracy.

“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,” the Court held.

The case arose from a private complaint filed by businessman K Nandukumar. He alleged that D Suresh Babu, actors D Venkatesh and Rana Daggubati, D Abiram and accountant Gaddam Vishwanatham, along with officials of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), had facilitated the demolition of structures on premises leased by him.

Nandukumar further alleged that Daggubati along with the others entered the property, broke open its doors, removed movable articles, forcibly dispossessed him and his family, and threatened them.

A Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused under provisions of the IPC dealing with trespass, theft, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy.

The accused (Dagubatti and others) approached the High Court seeking to quash the case, arguing that the dispute was fundamentally civil in nature, arising out of leasehold rights and possession, and that Nandukumar had given a criminal colour to what was essentially a property dispute.

They pointed out that the complaint was filed nearly a year after the alleged incident, that no GHMC officials had been made accused despite the complaint attributing the demolition to them, and that no stolen property had ever been recovered.

Nandukumar opposed the plea, arguing that he held valid registered lease rights over the property, protected by civil court injunction orders at the time of the alleged trespass.

He submitted that the accused had, in earlier civil proceedings, themselves admitted to regaining possession of the property following the GHMC demolition, without ever obtaining a formal eviction decree.

The Court held that the existence of a parallel civil dispute does not, on its own, bar criminal prosecution.

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 observed.

The Court found that key questions in the case, including whether the accused had unlawfully dispossessed the complainant despite an existing injunction, and whether their alleged admissions in civil proceedings amounted to evidence of unlawful conduct, were disputed questions of fact that could only be resolved through trial, not in a petition seeking the pre-trial quashing of proceedings.

The Court also rejected the argument that the Magistrate had mechanically taken cognisance of the case without applying judicial mind. The High Court held that the Magistrate had, in fact, considered the complaint, sworn statements, and supporting material before issuing summons.

The Court proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by Daggubati and others accused. The Court, however, clarified that the accused remain free to raise all factual and legal defences before the trial court.

Advocate Raghuram represented the petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Syed Yasar Mamoon represented the State.

Advocate Venugopal Julakanti represented the complainant.

[Read Order]