HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13913 of 2013
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is directed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner who is shown as second party in Crime No.362 of 2013 issued by Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad District under Section 145 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said F.I.R.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the material on record.
3. The second respondent-Inspector of Police, Kushaiguda suo motu registered this case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The allegations of the F.I.R. discloses that there is land dispute between Udyog and Dalith Bahujan Plot Owners Society, Kapra, Kushaiguda lead by its General Secretary Sri Gopal Rao and Sri Prem Sagar, MLC, Adilabad District in sy.Nos.639/1, 634/1, 644/1, 647/1, 648, 654 totalling Ac.61-34 guntas of Kapra Village, near Vampuguda which is owned and possessed by Sri K.Seshagiri Rao and others. The land in survey numbers was divided into house plots admeasuring 300 square yards each and was sold by the 2 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013 original pattedars M/s.Shamshabad Sathaiah, Shamshabad Mallesh, both sons of Kistaiah, S.Surender Reddy and S.Siva Reddy both sons of Ramulu or through their GPA holder and the members of Udyog and Dalith Bahujan Society purchased the plots through registered sale deeds after payment of consideration to the lawful owners and taken possession of house plots and most of them are residing at far of places outside Hyderabad and unable to protect their house plots individually. Therefore, majority plot owners decided to form a society to safeguard their house plots from encroachments and formed society in the year 1998 and registered vide No.5544/1998. It is also alleged that several persons attempted to grab vacant land taking advantage of the helplessness. Few of the land owners colluded with land grabbers and threatening other plot owners to sell their plots to M/s.Sainath Estates Pvt., Ltd., and Bhagyanagar Hotel Pvt. Ltd., for which Mr.K.Premsagar Rao is the Managing Director for, a throw away price. Moreover, society could not protect the plots as said K.Premsagar Rao is the sitting M.L.C., as such, they advised the plot owners approach civil Courts. Many owners filed civil 3 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013 suits and obtained injunction orders. Inspite of the same, said K.Premsagar Rao recently kept his followers in the house plots and threatening the members. It is also alleged that the first party consist of 12 members and second party consists of 17 members and they are having claims and counter claims in respect of the said property and the criminal and civil cases are registered against each other. The details of civil and criminal cases are registered against the parties including the petitioner herein have been mentioned in detail in the F.I.R. On examining the documents of both the parties in respect of above dispute, land totally admeasuring Ac.61.34 guntas of Kapra Village near Vampuguda bind over the parties under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to avoid breach of peace and tranquility problem at the disputed land which necessitated the Inspector of Police to initiate the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. suo motu registering of the case and took-up investigation. Being aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the present petition is filed to quash the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the General Secretary of Udyog and Dalith Bahujan Plot Owners 4 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013 Society and he filed O.S.No.314 of 2008 in respect of his plot No.89 situated at Kapra Municipality for injunction and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 23.02.20211, which has attained finality. The other members of Society also filed civil suits in respect of their plots and orders are granted in their favour. It is stated that the fourth respondent is the former MLC and real estate businessman influenced respondent Nos.2 and 3 and based on which second respondent registered suo motu F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the same to the Executive Magistrate- cum-Tahsildar for initiating further proceedings in the matter. It is stated that the second respondent has no powers to register the F.I.R. and initiate the proceedings. He further submits that Section 145 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure to be followed where dispute concerning the immovable property or water is likely to cause breach of peace, but it does not contain penal provision and the Police Officer is the complainant or informant to the Executive Magistrate and not the officer who receives information. As such registration of F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not permitted 5 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013 under law. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.
5. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of K.Guravaiah v.State of Andhra Pradesh1.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the Inspector of Police in order to maintain peace and there is likelihood of breach of peace between two groups has rightly registered the case and referred the same to the third respondent- Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar for initiating further proceedings. There is every likelihood of breach of peace, if these proceedings are quashed and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition and allow the third respondent to proceed as per law.
7. In K.Guravaiah supra, this Court at para No.5 held as under:
Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not contain a penal provision much less deal with any type of offence whether cognizable or non- cognizable. Section 145 Cr.P.C. prescribes procedure to be followed where dispute concerning immovable property or water is likely to cause breach of peace. Under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. the Executive Magistrate passes an order in case the Executive Magistrate is satisfied from "a report of police officer or upon other information" that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists. Thus, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the police officer is the complainant of the informant to the Executive Magistrate. When the Police Officer is the complainant or the informant and is not the 1 2011 Crl.L.J.64 6 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013 officer who receives information, then question of registering the said information under Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all. The police officer acting under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is at the receiving end with reference to the information. Whereas a police officer in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not at the receiving end, but is at the forwarding stage with reference to the information. Therefore, question of registering a crime under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and forwarding F.I.R. to the Magistrate under Section 157 CDr.P.C. does not arise in case of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C."
8. In the instant case, the Inspector of Police have acted similarly in the facts and circumstances stated in Guravaiah's case supra. The Inspector of Police suo motu registered a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and took-up investigation. There is no dispute about the provisions of Cr.P.C and settled principle of law that there must be commission of offence and such offence may be cognizable or non-cognizable offence for receiving information by the police officer under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sending the same to the Magistrate in the prescribed proforma under Section 157 Cr.P.C. Without there being commission of an offence, the question of the police officer receiving information under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or sending a report in the prescribed form to the Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all.
9. Section 145 Cr.P.C. empowers that if the Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon 7 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013 other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he can pass appropriate orders. So it is necessary that the Magistrate should be satisfied, at the time of drawing up the proceedings that there is, then existing a likelihood of breach of the peace arising from the disputes between the parties.
10. It appears from the allegations of the F.I.R. that there are civil suits filed by one group against the other and which may appear that there is likelihood of breach of peace, but invoking the powers and registration of F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is an abuse of power of the police officials. Section 145 Cr.P.C. clearly lays down the procedure to be followed where dispute concerning immovable property or water is likely to cause breach of peace. Thus, in a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the police officer is the complainant or the informant to the Executive Magistrate. As stated supra, he cannot suo motu register the case and police officer is the complainant or the informant who receives information. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the 8 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013 registration of crime under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed. Therefore, it is considered as a fit case to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to quash the proceedings.
11. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.362 of 2013 of Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________
A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
23.08.2022
Nvl
9 ASR,J
Crlp_13913_2013
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5482 of 2013
10 ASR,J
Crlp_13913_2013
02.08.2022
Nvl