Telangana High Court
Palla Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1257 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners, who is arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in FIR, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6502 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.2022, at about 17:00 hours, the petitioners illegally trespassed into land in Survey No.134 and dug the holes with the help of JCB bearing No. TS 08 FZ 7880. Immediately, respondent No. 2 informed them that this land belongs to Jangamkunta, as such, asked them to stop their work. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No. 863 of 2022 and charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.6502 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. It is stated that petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.29725 of 2022 seeking a Writ of Mandamus, wherein this 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1257 of 2023 Court granted interim direction to Tahsildar, Serilingampally, in respect of property bearing No.1-3/4/51/A, Plot No.51/1A, admeasuring 223.3 square yards or equivalent to 186.67 square meters in Survey No. 112/3 situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Heard Sri Mirza Saifulla Baig, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.1-3/4/51/A, plot No.51/1A, admeasuring 223.3 square yards in Survey No.112/3, situated at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing No.1621 of 1991 dated 02.03.1991. He further submitted that it is falsely alleged that the petitioner No.1 making construction over the land in Survey No.134, whereas the plot of petitioner No.1 comes under Survey No.112/3 as per the revenue records. He also submitted that instead of following the specific directions of this Court in W.P.No.29725 of 2022, respondent No.2 filed a false complaint. Hence, he prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against them.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1257 of 2023
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioners tried to trespass into the said property and the case needs to go through trial for the alleged offences against the petitioners. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submission by both the counsel, this Court has perused the record and found that as per the complaint averments of respondent No.2, under the guise of direction of this Court in W.P.No.29725 of 2022, these petitioners are trying to encroach the government land in Survey No.134. It is pertinent to note that as per the revenue records, both the Survey Numbers i.e., Survey Nos.134 and 112/3 are different. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since allegations levelled against the petitioners require a detailed trial in order to elicit true facts of the case.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1 , wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
1
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1257 of 2023 "The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
8. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (Supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As the Calendar Case is of the year 2022, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the Calendar Case as expeditiously as possible duly affording opportunity to the parties.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 24.04.2024 gms