Telangana High Court
Sangi Bakkaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6891 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 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.784 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Alair, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 507 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that himself and his brother Sangi Siddiramulu equally shared the property belonging to their father admeasuring Acs.04.00 guntas in survey No.265 within the revenue limits of Velmajala Village and are cultivating the same since thirty years. He alleged that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 used to quarrel with him and on 30.5.2020 at about 14:30 hours, the above three persons criminally trespassed into his agricultural land, holding sticks and axes to cut down the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6891 of 2023 trees and later on 23.6.2020 at about 10:00 hours they damaged the cotton origins/germ and erected hut in the said field. On receipt of such information, the respondent No.2 along with his younger brother went to the field and asked them about their illegal acts on which they abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, wherein, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri G.Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2, one Sangi Laxminarayana and petitioner No.1 are agnates and sons of Sangi Siddaiah who inherited the agricultural land in Survey No.265 in equal shares. He further submitted that there is a land of Grama Khantam abutting to the said land in survey No.265 admeasuring 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6891 of 2023 Acs.2.18 guntas, which was in the possession of the deceased father and the same was partitioned equally among the brothers and while things stood so, on 30.5.2020 when the petitioner No.1 was getting his share of Grama Khantam land leveled, the respondent No.2 and younger brother obstructed the same, due to which the petitioner No.1 went away from there and subsequently, the respondent No.2 got the entire land of Acs.2.18 guntas leveled with his tractor and sown cotton seeds. He contended that the respondent No.2 being highly influential person, he managed to register a false, motivated and mischievous case against the petitioners. He further contended that without there being any evidence, the petitioners were implicated in this case. 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 opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the complaint averments disclose that the petitioners entered into the land of respondent No.2 and attempted to damage the property, as such, the same would reveal that there is prima facie case against the petitioners. Therefore, stating that the matter 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6891 of 2023 requires a detailed trial, 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. Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of C.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the averments made in the complaint and the averments recorded in the statements of the witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute any offence as alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings against the accused persons are liable to be quashed.
8. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State 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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6891 of 2023 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."
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the contents of the complaint, the specific allegation leveled against the petitioners is that they have criminally trespassed into the land possessed by respondent No.2 and also caused severe damage therein. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be decided whether the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague or baseless and the same can be decided after full-fledged trial.
10. 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 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6891 of 2023 to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioners, before the trial Court, is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition of petitioners being represented by their counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 06.06.2024 PT