Telangana High Court refuses to quash criminal trespass case against Rana Daggubati and D Venkatesh

The Telangana High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against actors D Venkatesh and Rana Daggubati, Daggubati's father and film producer D Suresh Babu, and others in a dispute over possession of a property in Hyderabad, Bar & Bench reported. LiveLaw reported the ruling as [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 127]. Justice N Tukaramji held that the complaint, the sworn statements and the supporting material disclose a prima facie case warranting further enquiry. The court said several disputed questions of fact arise for adjudication during trial and it was not inclined to use its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the threshold, according to Bar & Bench. The case arose from a private complaint by businessman K Nandukumar. He alleged that D Suresh Babu, Venkatesh, Daggubati, D Abiram and accountant Gaddam Vishwanatham, along with Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) officials, facilitated demolition of structures on premises he had leased. He further alleged that Daggubati and others entered the property, broke open its doors, removed movable articles, forcibly dispossessed him and his family, and threatened them, per Bar & Bench. The accused argued the dispute was civil, arising from leasehold rights and possession. They said the complaint was filed nearly a year after the alleged incident, that no GHMC officials were made accused, and that no stolen property was recovered. Nandukumar said he held registered lease rights protected by civil court injunction orders and that the accused had admitted in earlier civil proceedings to regaining possession after the demolition without a formal eviction decree, Bar & Bench reported. The court held that a parallel civil dispute does not on its own bar criminal prosecution where the complaint independently discloses the essential ingredients of cognizable offences. It found that whether the accused unlawfully dispossessed the complainant despite an injunction, and whether their alleged admissions amounted to evidence of unlawful conduct, were disputed facts for trial.