Telangana High Court
Sri. Pamu Durga Krishna Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10273 OF 2023
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 in C.C.No.553 of 2023 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, at Sangareddy, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, (for short 'PDPP Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent NO.2/de facto complainant who works as Assistant Engineer, Munipally Mandal, lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner who runs business under the name Siri Shelter Private Limited situated in survey Nos.466 and 467 falling under FTL and buffer zone of Peddacheruvu Tank of Munipally Mandal has illegal encroachment as per G.O.Ms.No.168 of the Municipal Administration and Urban Development. It is alleged that though the higher officials of said company were informed to remove the encroachment, during inspection of tank on 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023 03.12.2022 gravel filling and construction was found in the said place.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner arraying him as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri P.Venkanna, learned counsel for petitioner/accused, 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 petitioner submitted that though the respondent No.2 has alleged in the complaint, as well as, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of IPC that the petitioner has encroached the land as per G.O.Ms.No.168, the same would amount to civil dispute and the same needs to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. He contended that petitioner purchased agricultural land to an extent of Acs.12.08 gts vide two registered sale deeds and that being so, the question of 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023 Section 3 of PDPP Act attracting against the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, while reiterating that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner is unfair, unjust and contrary to interest of justice, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that as per the complaint and charge sheet averments, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are with regard to illegal encroachment in spite of issuance of warning and the same allegations being serious in nature, the matter requires full fledged trial. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the essence of evidence collected during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner/accused purchased agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2.04 guntas in survey No.466 vide registered sale deeds dated 18.01.2023 in favour of Siri Shelter Private Limited. Further, he owns agricultural land to an extent of Acs.5.02 guntas in survey No.467 where he was performing 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023 activities like farming and plantation and thereafter, the land to an extent of Acs.2 guntas in survey No.466 and Acs.5.03 guntas in survey No.467 was submerged in pond water affected under the FTL and buffer zone of Munipally Village, Pedda Cheruvu.
8. In addition, it is needless 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 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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023 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. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that before the petitioner/accused purchased the abovementioned land, the Telangana Government has issued common Building Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.168 (M.A. & U.D Department) dated 07.04.2012 and whilst having knowledge of the said Rules, the petitioner/accused has allegedly registered the said land in the name of his company and is illegally entering into the land and construction wall in the pond water under FTL and buffer zone land which damages the rain water storage area and the same are matters which require trial. Furthermore, though the learned counsel for petitioner contended that the matter pertains to civil nature and the same requires to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the said contention as the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023
10. 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 full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:20.06.2024 PT