Indarapu Shankar vs The State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

Indarapu Shankar vs The State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024

                                  1




          THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10389 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.861 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 294(b) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case are that on 18.6.2023 at about 15:00 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that, since there is a dispute with regard to Ac.0-03 guntas of land between herself and her sisters and brothers, when she was going to her land to fix up the boundaries, the accused trespassed into the land and abused her in filthy language and beat with sticks and hands, due to which herself and her sister received injuries and hence, requested to take action against the accused. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2023 of Polilce Station, CCC Naspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 294(b) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet for the said offences, the same was numbered as C.C.No.861 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial. 2

3. The contention of the petitioners is that accused No.1 is the brother of respondent No.2 and the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.9 ¼ guntas in Sy.No.84 situated at Theegalapahad Shivaru and it was inherited from his father Mr. Indaarapu Komuraiah and accused No.1 sold 5 guntas of land to his sisters at the rate of 1 gunta per person. On 24.04.2023 Gollapalli Bhagya sold her land to Prabhavathi and Bhagya along with Prabhavathi came to the petitioner's land and started measuring the boundaries and they broke the bricks and on that day, they left the land after the fight. Again on 18.06.2023 at about 3:00 p.m., they trespassed into the petitioner's land and measured the boundaries of the petitioner's land instead of the land the petitioner sold and this time they broke the bricks and set fire to 'mullakampa' which is used as fencing to the petitioner's land, upon which accused Nos.1 to 4 objected and restrained the defacto complainant from entering into the land, then the defacto complainant insulted petitioners with foul language and injured the petitioners by hitting them with stones and hands. Petitioners/Accused No.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint and FIR was registered vide Crime No.143 of 2023, but the police closed the F.I.R without specifying any reason. In the charge sheet police specified that since few days some quarrels were occurring between accused No.1 and LWs.1 to 3 and recorded their statements as witness, the police did not investigate 3 properly and filed charge sheet without any investigation. As such, the offences alleged against these petitioners are false and, in fact, it is the de-facto complainant and her sisters, who attacked the petitioners and as such, though they filed complaint and registered the crime, but the said crime was closed. As such, the petitioners prayed the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against them.

4. Heard Sri A.Lalitha Kiran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are civil disputes with regard to the land in between the family members of the petitioners and respondent No.2 and to pressurize the petitioners, the criminal case is filed. In fact, the petitioners- accused were injured in the hands of the de-facto complainant and the police without proceeding with the case, falsely implicated these petitioners in the above case and that the provisions of Section 294(b) does not attract and, as such, the learned counsel prayed the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners- accused.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that severe injuries were caused to the victims and there are serious allegations against these petitioners and, as such 4 at this stage, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners- accused cannot be quashed and the same requires adjudication.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, 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 as alleged by the Police.

8. 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 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. As seen from the record, the contention of the petitioners is that the complainant is not the owner of the subject property and petitioner/accused No.1 is the owner of the said property and while defending themselves, the injuries were caused to respondent No.2 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 and her sisters. However, the allegations leveled against these petitioners show that it requires trial and, as such, at this stage, it cannot be quashed and the statement of the witnesses and complaint averments show that the de-facto complainant sustained injuries in the hands of the petitioners. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. 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 petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 03.05.2024 ds