High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 TEL CK 5371

Mohammed Khasim vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Telangana High Court · Decided on 24 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
J. Sreenivas Rao, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 13256 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 609 words

This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2-The Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District vide proceedings No.A/407/2022, dated 07.06.2022.

2.

Heard Mr. Yahiya Bin Mohsin Ali Kaseri, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conference, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. With their consent this criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.Nos.47/A and 47/B, situated at Pangadpippri Gram Panchayat, Devapur, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District. The said property was purchased from Syed Rasool Bee under registered sale deeds dated 13.06.2011 and 21.05.2013, for valuable sale consideration. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the above said property.

4.

He further submitted that one Syed Akthar lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police on 30.05.2022. Basing on the said complaint and the report of Mandal Girdavar dated 06.06.2022, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings exercising the powers conferred under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Especially, respondent No.2 has no authority or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., on the ground that a comprehensive civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession is pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Adilabad in O.S.No.129 of 2021. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 executed proceedings through impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2022 and took the land admeasuring Ac. 4.17 guntas in Sy.No.47/A and Ac.6.17 guntas in Sy.No.47/B into Government custody under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C until further orders. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner was unable to continue his agricultural operation in respect of his land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas. Unless the above said proceedings are quashed, the petitioner will be put to great hardship.

5.

When this Court raised a query about the maintainability of the present criminal petition without impleading the complainant, namely, Syed Akthar S/o Nabeel and others, as party-respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was also made as a party. Hence, the question of making the complainant as a party-respondent does not arise.

6.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that basing on the complaint lodged by Mr. Syed Akthar and Mr. Bompalli Murali, the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Talamadugu submitted report to the Executive Magistrate on 30.05.2022 and basing on the said report, on 06.06.2022, respondent No.2 exercised the powers conferred under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C and issued the impugned proceedings.

7.

It is also relevant to mention that according to Section 145(5) of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner is entitled to file appropriate application for seeking cancellation of the impugned proceedings and the petitioner without availing such remedy, straight away approached this Court and filed the present criminal petition.

8.

For the foregoing reason, the petitioner is granted liberty to file necessary application invoking Section 145(5) of the Cr.P.C before the respondent No.2. Upon filing such application, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to respective parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner.

9.

With the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.