Telangana High Court
Suresh Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 10 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4477 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 petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.834 of 2023, on the file of learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2023, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that petitioner criminally trespassed into the Government Land situated in Sy.No.36 admeasuring 2152 Sq.Yards at Gopanpally Village of Serilingampally Mandal. It is further stated that the Tahsildar, Serilingamaplly Mandal had initially did not serve the notice to the petitioner and passed Eviction orders dated 24.02.2023 in Proceedings No.B/63/2023 under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the same was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.7672 of 2023 dated 29.03.2023.
3. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri G. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Perused the material on record.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 gave complaint stating that the petitioner damaged the public property and trespassed into the Government land, whereas there are disputes with regard to the subject land and the eviction order was issued, however, the eviction order was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.7672 of 2023. As such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner encroached into the Government land and also damaged the property. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Admittedly, the property in which the petitioner constructed the building is a disputed property and according to the de fact complainant it is a government land and the petitioner entered into the government land and caused damaged to the property. The averments in the complaint shows that the petitioner encroached into the land, which requires trial.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent 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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 3 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. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (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.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE SMT. K.SUJANA Date:10.06 .2024 ssm