Telangana High Court
Kadewar Maruthi vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1846 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 6seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.744 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Narayankhed, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 504, read with 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.7.2022 the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that they are six brothers to their parents and they own Acs.12.37 guntas of agricultural land in Survey No.133 of Kangi Village outskirts and as per the proceeding No.A3/820/2022 a survey was conducted over the said land and boundary stones were installed in the field but asthe accused persons own agricultural land in survey No.116 which is beside the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1846 of 2023 land owned by respondent No.2, a dispute arose between them and an ad-interim injunction order was passed vide I.A.No.337 of 2022 in OS.No.123 of 2022 and both the parties were instructed to not interfere with the suit property but ignoring the said order, the accused persons criminally trespassed into the agricultural land of respondent No.2 and sprayed weedicides on the cotton crop which damaged the crops.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, wherein, the petitionerswere arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Kadire Krishnaiah, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1846 of 2023
5. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the ingredients of Sections 427, 447 and 504 of IPC do not attract against the petitioners as no specific averments were made in the complaint relating to commitment of mischief or causing loss or damage and criminal trespass and intentional insult. He asserted that the petitioners already obtained ad-interim injunction order in their favour and the said complaint was made against them only as a counterblast to the said order, as such, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are baseless and without any evidence. He contended that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are frivolous and without any evidence. Therefore, prayed this Court allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the petitioners/accused 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1846 of 2023 Nos.1 to 6 have illegally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and also sprayed weedicides over the cotton crops of respondent No.2, as such, the matter requires trial. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.
8. As per thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in theState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, paragraph No.14 reads as under:
"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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1846 of 2023 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."
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made, it is noted that the limited grievance of respondent No.2/de facto complainant is that the petitioners have criminally trespassed into his land situated in Survey No.133 of Kangi Village outskirts, and also caused damage to the crops, whereas, the stand of petitioners is that the said allegation is false and the criminal allegations are leveled against them only as the counterblast of the injunction order which is in their favour.
10. As seen from the record, it is noted that the survey number mentioned in the injunction order granted vide I.A.No.337 of 2022 in O.S.No.123 of 2022 is different from the survey number where the alleged 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1846 of 2023 trespass took place. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be decided whether the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless and the same can be decided after full-fledged trial.
11. In view of the above, and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.06.2024 PT