Telangana High Court
Ravirala Vasudev And 4 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 4 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1460 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/accused Nos.1 to 5, to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.213 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Offences at Nalgonda, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(g) of SC/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.02.2021, accused No.1 along with his henchmen illegally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and planted fencing by removing fifty orange trees. It is stated that on 27.06.2022 also, accused persons trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and removed hundred orange trees with the help of JCB. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No. 43 of 2022 before the Gurrampode Police and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.213 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Offences at Nalgonda. 2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1460 of 2023
3. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 filed suit vide O.S.No.165 of 2018 before the Civil Court. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed the complaint with false allegation only for monitory gains in a land dispute. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners used to interfere with the possession of the land of respondent No.2 by damaging his orange crop. As such, the alleged offences against the petitioners require trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1460 of 2023 prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. SurendraKori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"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. As seen from the record, it is stated that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 with regard to the boundaries in Survey Nos.1062, 1064 situated at Koppole village of Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners trespassed to the land of respondent No.2 by damaging the orange crop on 09.02.2021 and 27.06.2022 during the pendency of civil suit vide O.S.No.165 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Nalgonda. Mere pendency of the suit is not a ground to quash 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1460 of 2023 the proceedings when the allegations are not only about the trespass but also about the damage of the crop. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the allegations against the petitioners requires trial to elicit the truth, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the petitioners cannot be quashed.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SurendraKori (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.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 04 .07.2024 gms