Telangana High Court Rejects Rana Daggubati Plea in Deccan Kitchen Case

The Telangana High Court has refused to interfere with criminal proceedings involving actors Rana Daggubati and Venkatesh Daggubati, producer D Suresh Babu, D Abhiram and accountant Gaddam Vishwanatham over a property dispute connected to the Deccan Kitchen restaurant in Hyderabad.

The court made it clear that a dispute being handled through civil proceedings does not automatically rule out criminal action. If the complaint contains allegations that point towards a criminal offence, the case can continue while the related civil dispute is also being dealt with separately.

How the Dispute Started

The case traces back to a property in Film Nagar that was associated with the Deccan Kitchen restaurant. Businessman Kore Nandu Kumar filed a private complaint before a magistrate, raising allegations against the group.

The complaint included claims of:

• Unlawful entry into the property
• Theft
• Criminal intimidation
• Criminal conspiracy

Certain GHMC officials were also included in the complaint.

Kumar alleged that structures on the leased property were demolished and that people entered the premises without following the required legal process. He further claimed that belongings were taken from the property and that he and his family were subjected to threats.

The complainant also argued that the alleged incidents took place when court directions concerning possession of the property were already in force.

To support his case, he placed several pieces of material before the magistrate, including documents, photographs, video footage, witness statements and records connected with the civil litigation.

Why the Daggubatis Went to the High Court

Following the magistrate's decision to take the complaint on record and issue summons, the accused approached the Telangana High Court in 2024.

Their main contention was that the disagreement was fundamentally a property and lease-related matter. They argued that the dispute should be resolved through civil proceedings and that continuing a criminal case would not be appropriate.

The High Court did not agree that the civil nature of the dispute was enough to bring the criminal proceedings to an end.

Court Explains Its Position

Justice N Tukaramji observed that one dispute can give rise to both civil and criminal consequences. The existence of a civil lawsuit, by itself, cannot be used as a reason to terminate criminal proceedings when the complaint and preliminary material indicate the possibility of a cognisable offence.

The court also pointed out that the truth behind the allegations cannot be established merely by examining the quashing petition. Issues surrounding the alleged possession, the evidence submitted by the complainant and the alleged involvement of the accused are matters that require proper examination during the trial.

The High Court therefore declined to assess the strength of the evidence at this stage. It noted that proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC are not meant to conduct a detailed evaluation of competing versions of events before the trial begins.

The court also considered the argument that the magistrate had issued summons without properly applying his mind. After reviewing the record, the High Court found that the magistrate had considered the complaint, witness statements and other material before taking cognisance.

Proceedings to Move Ahead

With the High Court dismissing the petition, the criminal case will continue before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

The decision should not be interpreted as a conviction or a declaration that the allegations against the accused have been proved. The High Court has only decided that the proceedings should not be stopped at this stage.

The allegations will now be considered through the regular trial process, where the evidence and claims of the parties can be examined in detail.