Telangana High Court
G. Vemana Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3370 OF 2024
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 petitioner/accused No.3 in FIR.No.221 of 2023 dated 27.10.2023 before the Suraram Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a written complaint stating that when she went to regular field inspection in survey Nos.2 and 3, FTL land, Krishna Nagar, Gajularamaram Village, she noticed that persons by name Yadagiri, Mazhar, Vemana Reddy/petitioner/accused No.3 trespassed to FTL land and have illegally disturbed the cheruvu by constructing rooms, filling the kotha cheruvu.
2
SKS,J Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered FIR.No.221 of 2023 dated 27.10.2023 arraying the petitioner as accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri K.Rajashekhar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the period of the alleged incident, the petitioner was not even present in India and the same can be proved by the air tickets which shows the departure of petitioner to America was schedule on 10.07.2023 and the arrival to India was scheduled on 03.12.2023. He contended that in the absence of petitioner, the respondent No.2 has raised false accusations and allegations against the petitioner with malicious intentions. He asserted that the Section 447 which pertains to criminal trespass requires physical presence of the accused on the property in question and Section 427 revolves around causing mischief which necessitates direct involvement in damaging or destroying property, whereas, 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024 petitioner being not present in the country, the offence as alleged against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of process of law.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that the averments of the complaint fail to demonstrate the involvement of petitioner in any of the activities warranting penal consequences in relation to the case. He lamented that there is lack of evidence indicating that petitioner has criminally trespassed or damaged the property of FTL land by any means. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and contended that as per the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, during her field inspection she noticed criminal trespass over the FTL land and as the said matter requires detailed investigation, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 cannot be quashed at this stage. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the complaint averments, the respondent No.2 is a Government 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024 Official who lodged written complaint on behalf of the Government, stating that the FTL land is occupied and trespassed by private persons for constructing rooms on the said land which will cause damage and inconvenience at large, whereas, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was out of country during the period of the alleged trespass incident and there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police. That being so, it is imperative 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:
"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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024 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."
10. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is noted that though the respondent No.2 alleged that there is criminal trespass over the FTL land, the version of the petitioner is that he is the original and rightful owner of the said property and that being so, the question of trespass does not even arise. Further, it is also the specific contention of learned counsel for petitioner that during the period of alleged incident, the petitioner was not present in the country.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that whether the said FTL land situated in survey Nos.2 and 3, of Krishna Nagar, Gajularamaram Village, belongs to petitioner is a matter that cannot be decided at this stage. Further, the plea of the petitioner that he being out of country at the time of alleged incident cannot be a ground to 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024 quash proceedings initiated against him and the same requires investigation.
12. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires investigation and full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 19.07.2024 PT