HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2041 of 2020
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.1356 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.
The facts in issue are as under:
The 1st respondent/de facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that on 27.08.2017 at about 1.45 P.M., he along with one K.Srinvias, visited plot No.16/2, Kothapet Village in Sy.No.108, which belongs to his cousin Manchikanti Madhusudhan, as it is for sale. At that time, the petitioner/accused, who was present at the spot, abused them and assaulted him on his left hand with the butt of double barrel gun, as a result of which he sustained an injury. Basing on the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.497 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. against the petitioner/accused. After due investigation, the police filed the charge sheet, which was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.1356 of 2017. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the said C.C.
2
After receiving the notice, there was no representation on behalf of the 1st respondent either in-person or through a Counsel. Hence, heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that the son of the petitioner and one Manchikanti Madhusudan-L.W.4 are claiming rights over the plot No.16/2. The son of the petitioner by name Sriram Bharath got registered the said plot in his favour by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 05.05.2005 vide registered document No.4233 of 2005. On the other hand, said Manchikanti Madhusudan claims that he has purchased the said property vide document No.845 of 1999 dated 05.02.1999 and, therefore, the entire dispute is purely civil in nature and that the 1st respondent has deliberately converted the civil dispute into a criminal case. The Counsel further submits that the petitioner filed a discharge petition, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 24.07.2019 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also filed a revision before the Sessions Court, but the same was dismissed on 17.12.2019. He also submits that the Apex Court has time and again stated that there is a growing tendency amongst the business circles to convert civil disputes into criminal cases only with a view to 3 pressurize the accused to come to their terms and that the same shall not be encouraged. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajib Ranjan v. R.Vijay Kumar1; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited2 and State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal3. He also submits that all the allegations that have been made are fabricated and that no case is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, continuation of the proceedings would only be a futile exercise.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that after thorough investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner/accused and there is nothing wrong in it.
A perusal of the material on record would show that the son of the petitioner and one Manchikanti Madhusudan-LW.4 are claiming rights over the plot in question. The son of the petitioner got registered the plot in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 05.05.2005 vide document No.4233 of 2005, whereas the said Manchikanti Madhusudan, who is the cousin of the 1st respondent claims that he got purchased the property vide document No.845 of 1999 dated 05.02.1999. Therefore, it can be said that the contention of the petitioner that there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the rights of the property and in 1 (2015) 1 SCC 513 2 (2006) 6 SCC 736 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 4 order to sort out the said dispute, the present complaint has been lodged appears to be correct.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and since both the parties are claiming rights over the disputed property, I am of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused will be a futile exercise and would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1356 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-VII-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 09.06.2021 gkv/Gsn