Telangana High Court
Mr. Palem Vijayananda Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1944of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.294 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that One Sodan Pawan Kumar Reddy, lodged a complaint before the Police, Chevella Police Station, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner and other accused stating that he along with one M. Pushpanath Reddy, have purchased the land for an amount of Rs.45,00,000/-, admeasuring Ac.11.29 guntas, in Sy.Nos.94/A, 42/A/2, 43/A/2, 44/A/2, 45/A2, 46/A/2, 47/A/2, 94/AA/2, 97/A/2, 41/A/2, 94, 46/A/1, 47/A/1, 97/A/1, 45/A/3 situated at Gundala Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the petitioner, who is representing M/s. Vijayabheri Estates N 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1944 of 2024 Constructions Private Limited. The said Sodan Pawan Kumar entered into an agreement of sale and paid an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- towards part sale consideration on terms and conditions. The said Sodan Pawan Kumar requested the petitioner to register the sale deed but he is evading the same on one pretext or the other. Later, the said Sodan Pawan Kumar filed suit vide O.S.No.1049 of 2007 for specific performance. Thereafter, some unknown persons criminally trespassed into the schedule land and removed the notice board and threatened their GPA holder and other.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2008. After completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.11 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District and thereafter, on completion of full-fledged trial, accused Nos.2, was acquitted. However, the petitioner/accused No.1, was not aware that a case was pending against him before the trial Court, as such, the case was split up against the petitioner and renumbered as C.C.No.294 of 2012, before the learned Judicial Magistrate of 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1944 of 2024 First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.
4. Heard Sri Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatas there was no evidence against accused No.2,who wasthe accused in same Crime,after full-fledged trial, he was acquitted. He further submitted that even if the trial is conducted against the petitioner/accused No.1, no purpose would be served, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that though the case against accused No.2 ended in acquittal,the petitioner/accused No.1 has to appear before the trial Court and face the trial and therefore, the same will be decided by the trial Court.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1944 of 2024
7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it appears that the trial Court has conducted trial for accused No.2 vide C.C.No.11 of 2010 wherein, the prosecution has examined only one witness i.e., PW.1 who is the Investigating Officer. Except the evidence of PW.1 there is no other evidence against the accused No.2. The LW.1 who is complainant, has died and the prosecution has not examined remaining witnesses.Therefore,as the allegation against the accused No.2, was not established, he was acquitted in C.C.No.11 of 2010.
8. Though there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, this Court would rely upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Pothula Suresh Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1 and Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2, whereunder, it was observed that when some of the accused in the same case found not guilty and are acquitted after full-fledged trial, the proceedings against the other accused are liable to be quashed.
1 2011 Crl.L.J. 609 2 (2018) 11 SCC 570 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1944 of 2024
9. In the present case also, accused No.2 was acquitted after full-fledged trial in C.C.No.11 of 2010. Except the evidence of P.W.1 who is the Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence to identify the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, continuation of proceedings is unwarranted. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.294 of 2012 against the petitioner/accused No.1is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1in C.C.No.294 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 06.06.2024 PT