Justice N Tukaramji holds a parallel civil dispute does not bar prosecution, leaving a Hyderabad property complaint against the actors to proceed.
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. The case is titled D Suresh Babu v. State of Telangana, according to Bar & Bench.
Justice N Tukaramji held that the complaint, the sworn statements and the supporting material disclosed 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 exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the threshold.
The case arose from a private complaint by businessman K Nandukumar. He alleged that Suresh Babu, Venkatesh, Daggubati, D Abiram and accountant Gaddam Vishwanatham, along with officials of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, facilitated demolition of structures on premises leased by him. 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. A Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons under IPC provisions on trespass, theft, criminal intimidation and conspiracy.
The accused argued the dispute was civil, arising from leasehold rights and possession. They pointed out that 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 injunctions, and that the accused had admitted in earlier civil proceedings to regaining possession after the demolition without a formal eviction decree.
The court held that a parallel civil dispute does not on its own bar prosecution where the complaint independently discloses the essential ingredients of cognizable offences. It said whether the accused unlawfully dispossessed the complainant despite an injunction, and whether their alleged admissions in civil proceedings were evidence of unlawful conduct, are questions for trial. LiveLaw reported the ruling as [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 127].
