Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Trespass Case Against Actor Rana Daggubati, Family
While the dispute has civil overtones but that cannot defeat criminal case where complaint discloses cognizable offence, Court said.
The Telangana High Court refused to quash a theft, house trespass case against actor Rana Daggubati, his father film producer D. Suresh Babu, brother D. Abiram, actor D. Venkatesh and another on a businessman's complaint alleging that petitioners facilitated demolition of construction raised by him on leased property and trespassed on it. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 127] The court held that pendency...
The Telangana High Court refused to quash a theft, house trespass case against actor Rana Daggubati, his father film producer D. Suresh Babu, brother D. Abiram, actor D. Venkatesh and another on a businessman's complaint alleging that petitioners facilitated demolition of construction raised by him on leased property and trespassed on it. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 127]
The court held that pendency of civil proceedings cannot extinguish the criminal liability where the complaint and material on record prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence; herein the court said that there was material including videos which disclosed a prima facie case warranting further enquiry. Daggubati and others had challenged a magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioners.
Justice N. Tukaramji held:
“The dispute between the parties undoubtedly possesses civil overtones arising out of competing claims relating to leasehold rights and possession. Nevertheless, merely because civil remedies have also been invoked cannot, by itself, extinguish criminal liability where the complaint independently discloses the commission of cognizable offences. 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 noted that the complainant-respondent had alleged that despite interim injunction orders protecting his possession, the petitioners unlawfully entered the leased premises, broke open doors, removed movable articles and dispossessed the occupants without obtaining a decree of eviction or following due process of law.
To substantiate his allegations, the complainant relied on sworn statements, documentary material, photographs, video recordings and alleged admissions made by the petitioners in connected civil proceedings.
The Court held that whether the allegations were ultimately true, whether the alleged admissions constituted evidence of unlawful dispossession, whether the complainant was in judicial custody during the relevant period, and whether the petitioners actively participated in the alleged acts were questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence.
“Such issues cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as doing so would necessarily require the Court to evaluate the evidentiary value of the rival versions, which is impermissible at this stage,” the Court said.
The Court rejected the challenge to the Magistrate's order taking cognizance on the ground that the Magistrate mechanically issued process without proper application of judicial mind.
It found that the impugned order shows that the averments in the complaint, statements recorded during preliminary inquiry and material placed before the Magistrate were duly considered before arriving at the requisite prima facie satisfaction.
The Court reiterated that at the stage of taking cognizance under Sections 200 and 204 CrPC, the High Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
“At this preliminary stage, the Court does not weigh the probative value of the evidence nor determine the likelihood of conviction, as those are matters exclusively within the domain of the trial Court upon appreciation of evidence,” the Court observed, adding that their scope of judicial scrutiny is confined to examination of complainant's allegations, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and the material placed before the Magistrate.
The Court accordingly dismissed the criminal petition and directed that the proceedings before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, shall proceed in accordance with law.
Background
The criminal proceedings arose from a private complaint filed by businessman K. Nandukumar alleging offences under Sections 448(House-trespass), 452(House-trespass after preparation for hurt), 380(Theft in a dwelling house), 506 (Criminal intimidation) and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) IPC.
The complainant alleged that the petitioners— Rana Daggubati, his father and film producer D. Suresh Babu, brother D. Abiram, actor D. Venkatesh and one another— in conspiracy with officials of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), facilitated demolition of unauthorised constructions allegedly raised by him on leased premises. He further alleged that the petitioners trespassed into the property, removed movable articles, criminally intimidated him and his family and entered into a criminal conspiracy.
The Magistrate, after considering the complaint and the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses, took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons to the petitioners.
The petitioners argued that the dispute was essentially civil, concerning leasehold rights, possession, eviction and demolition of the property, and that the complainant had given a criminal colour to a civil dispute. They also contended that the allegations do not disclose essential ingredients of the alleged offence and there was no evidence to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences.
They argued that the complaint was filed nearly a year after the alleged incident, that no stolen property had been identified or recovered, and that the GHMC officials allegedly responsible for the demolition had not been made accused.
They further argued that the complainant had initiated multiple civil and criminal proceedings concerning the same property and that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of process. Relying on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, they submitted that criminal law cannot be invoked as a means to settle civil disputes or enforce contractual claims.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that there was sufficient prima facie material disclosing cognizable offences.
Finding that the allegations, supported by statements and documents produced before Magistrate, prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence, the High Court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal proceedings.
Case: D.Suresh Babu & others v. State of Telangana & another,
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 501 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 127