Telangana High Court
Kopparthi Rajam vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10885 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 11 to 13 in Crl.M.P.No.868 of 2016 in C.C.No.353 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 323, 290 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, CCC Naspur Police Station, Adilabad District against the petitioners and other stating that she purchased the land, admeasuring Ac.1-19 guntas, in Survey No.46 situated at Naspur Shivar, from the original owner and pattedar under registered sale deed in the year 2006 in the name of her husband and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is stated that about three years prior to filing of the complaint when petitioner No.10/accused No.12, came to respondent No.2 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10885 of 2023 and her husband along with his men and asked to sell the said land to him. Respondent No.2 refused the same. Later, petitioner No.10 along with some unsocial elements has threatened respondent No.2 and her husband to grab the said land. Thereafter, the husband of respondent No.2 filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.200 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial for permanent injunction and the same was decreed in his favour. To protect the said land from encroachers and land grabbers, respondent No.2 and her husband dumped sand and cement bricks in their land and fixed cement poles along with fencing wire around their land. It is further stated that on 16.09.2015, when respondent No.2 and her husband went to see their land, the petitioners abused them in filthy language and threatened them to kill and took away the iron sheets and iron pipes and caused loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.138 of 2015 and after completion of investigation, final report was submitted as "false" and they filed charge sheet before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial.
3. Heard Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10885 of 2023 learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitionr Nos.10 and 11/accused Nos.12 and 13 denied the title and possession of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 did not get valid title under the so-called registered sale deed on which she is claiming the scheduled property as his vendor's vendor has no right or title over it. He further submitted that the entire property of his vendor's vendor was already sold away long back and basing upon nominal revenue entries, respondent No.2 created a false sale deed in collusion with her vendor. More particularly, there is no such land existing within the schedule property as alleged by respondent No.2. Without considering the same, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.200 of 2013, filed by the husband of respondent No.2 in their favour. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner Nos.10 and 11/accused Nos.12 and 13 filed Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.54 of 2017 and the same was allowed confirming the possession of petitioner Nos.10 and 11/accused Nos.12 and 13. It is also submitted that by creating false documents, respondent No.2 foisted the false case against the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10885 of 2023 petitioners. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioners, which are to be tried by the trial Court in trial. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that it is a false case. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, it appears that the petitioners entered into the property of respondent No.2 and took away the material. As seen from the record, there are civil disputes between the parties and the suit was also filed by the husband of respondent No.2 and the same was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners Nos.10 and 11 filed the appeal suit and the same was decreed in their favour. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners entered into the property of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioners abused respondent No.2 and her husband in filthy language and threatened them to kill and took away the iron sheets and iron pipes and caused loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. Initially, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint and Police registered the case vide Crime No.138 of 2015 and 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10885 of 2023 the same closed stating that the case was referred as 'false' and wherein it is mentioned that the iron sheets are not taken by the petitioners. The disputes between the parties appear to be civil in nature and civil suit is already filed against the judgment preferred appeal and it is also decided by the Court.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telangana and another 1, wherein in paragraph No.17 it is held as follows:
"17. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not, has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has happened in the case on hand, the High Court 1 2023 (1) ALT (CRL.) (SC) 1 (DB) 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10885 of 2023 should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of Court."
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Nagender Yadav (Supra), the contents in the complaint do not constitute any offence punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 290 of IPC against the petitioners. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC are to be tried by the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part and the proceedings against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 290 of the IPC are hereby quashed while permitting the prosecution to proceed further against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 26.04.2024 SAI