Telangana High Court
K. Ajay Kumar vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 6 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.878 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.415 of 2021 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 452, 427 read with 34 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other accused stating that he had been working as a watchman and guard, overseeing 3-guntas property at Survey No.355/1, Gayathri Nagar, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, for six years on a salary basis. It is further stated that Parvez purchased this property from Qamar Hasan Razvi, the legal heir of Hasan, who was allotted 14 acres of land through an occupancy right certificate. However, respondent No.2 believes 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022 that this agreement remains unregistered. Notably, Qamar Hasan Razvi has been embroiled in a long-standing legal battle with the petitioner. On 20.01.2021, and again on 14.03.2021, the petitioner, accompanied by accused Nos.2 and 4 and their henchmen, allegedly criminally trespassed onto the property, damaging CCTV cameras and attempting to grab the subject property and when respondent No.2 protested, they left and later returned armed with cranes, iron rods, and threatened respondent No.2 to vacate the premises. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.415 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 452, 427 read with 34 and 120b of IPC. Hence, the present criminal petition.
3. Heard Sri C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences and he is the 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022 absolute owner and possessor of the property in Survey No.355/1, Gayatri Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R. District, admeasuring 15935.34 square yards, supported by Registered Sale Deeds 9447, 9448, and 9449 of 2012. He further submitted that Qamar Hasan Razvi and others have maliciously filed false civil and criminal cases to coerce the petitioner and other accused into settling matters on their terms. He alleged that Razvi fabricated documents, disturbed their possession, and filed a private complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.584 of 2014, which was later discharged by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, as such, Razvi filed Criminal Revision, and the same is pending for adjudication.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 06.12.2020 when the Petitioner had visited his property and met Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi and Mohammed Sirajuddin Ahmed, he found that they were armed with weapons with intention of creating anti-social elements. The said persons had illegally trespassed and physically assaulted the Petitioner, as such, the Petitioner filed a complaint, and the same was registered as Crime No.811 of 2020 at P.S. Malkajgiri. In the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022 month of January, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Police, who in turn, directed the S.H.O. to add IPC Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, and 420 to the existing Sections. During the course of investigation, Mohammed Ilyas confessed that Razvi and Ahmed fabricated documents to deprive the rights of the petitioner. Razvi and Ahmed filed criminal petitions i.e., Criminal Petition Nos. 630, 661, and 2012 of 2021, before this Court to quash the FIRs, which were registered against them and a writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 4780 of 2021, all of which were dismissed with costs. Thereafter, they filed for anticipatory bail, and this Court granted the same on 13.05.2021 with conditions. The Commissioner of Police directed the S.H.O. to take action against the accused, but they failed to do so, allegedly colluding with Razvi and Ahmed through Inspector Srinivas, who aided the accused in evading arrest, evidenced by CCTV footage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners incessantly submitted that Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi and Mohammed Sirajuddin Ahmed allegedly colluded with Seker Yadav, husband of sitting corporate of Moulali, to create false documents and to grab the property of the Petitioner. The fabricated documents show the 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022 property in Maruthi Nagar, Moulali, but actually, the property of the petitioner was in Gayatri Nagar, Moulali. The Petitioner requested the Police, Malkajgiri that the above said persons were harassing and threatening him to settle with Razvi and Ahmed, as such, respondent No.2 filed Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.6909 of 2021 against the petitioner and other accused, and the same was pending. He further submitted that Razvi and Ahmed allegedly conspired with Yadav to file another Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.12471 of 2021, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser and that the Petitioner filed a Counter Affidavit in the said writ petition and the same is pending. Furthermore, the said Yadav has misled the G.H.M.C. officials, obtaining building permission for the property of the Petitioner, and the SHO has intimidated the Petitioner, prompting them to file another Writ Petition. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, citing collusion and conspiracy among Razvi, Ahmed, Yadav, and the SHO.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022 Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:
"8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tenency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal Courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle the civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes."
8. Further, he relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Shivaswamy v. State of Karnataka 2, wherein in paragraph No.12, it is held as follows:
"12. If possession is not with the complainant, she can hardly contend that the accused have trespassed into the property of the complainant. Her possession in the case at hand is determined by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition while observing that the BDA had already acquired the property for a particular purpose in the year 1986 and the complainant being in possession was not accepted. Civil cases are also pending against each other.1
2009 8 SCC 751 2 2022 LAWSUIT (KAR) 1700 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022 Therefore, if the complainant is not in possession of the property, there can be no allegation of criminal trespass into such property, in which accused themselves are in possession.
13. Criminal trespass as obtaining under Section 447 of the IPC and defined under Section 441 of the IPC can be committed only when a person enters into or upon any property, which is in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. If possession itself is not with the complainant as is held by this Court (supra), there can be no offence of criminal trespass into the property not belonging to the complainant.
If there is no criminal trespass into the property, causing damage under Section 427 of the IPC, by way of mischief of destruction of property also cannot be alleged, as they are inseparable, in the peculiar facts of this case."
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He divulged that Parvez purchased the property from the vendor Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi, who is legal heir of Hasan, among the legal heirs of allotee of 14 acres of land. That Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi is having legal battle with the petitioner since years and on the date of incident accused No.1, along with accused NOs.2 and 4 trespassed into the land and 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022 damaged CCTV camera and the same requires investigation and without there being any investigation, quashing of proceedings at this stage does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
10. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, this Court observes that the said Mir Qamar Hassan Razvi along with respondent No.2 had increasingly labeled civil matters as criminal offenses to pressurize, harass, or extract revenge on the petitioner. It is the duty of the Court to prevent such abuse of process. While civil disputes should not be camouflaged as criminal cases, it is also recognized that some civil disputes may contain elements of criminal offenses, which must be tried as such.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had time and again drawn attention against misusing criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes or scores. Each case will be evaluated to determine if it constitutes a genuine criminal offense or an abuse of process. The Court will ensure that proceedings are conducted in a free and fair manner and also in accordance with the law. 9
SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022
12. In the instant case, it is noted that Mir Mohammed Hassan and others were found to be the owners and possessors of Survey No.355/A in Malkajgiri village. However, the said Mir Qamar Hussian Razvi was identified as a land grabber involved in serious offences, including forgery and cheating. Despite this, it is found that the petitioner lacked prima facie evidence linking them to the alleged offences, rendering the framing of charges groundless. The dispute revolves around Survey No.355/1, with Mohammed Moinuddin Ghori creating forged documents and entering into agreements with the petitioner.
13. In addition to that respondent No.2 lacks standing to claim trespassing by the petitioner since he does not possess the property in question. Further, the trial Court previously determined in the related crime that the petitioner acquired the property in the year 2012, and the possession of Mir Qamar Hassan Razvi was not recognized. With pending civil cases between the parties, the absence of possession of the said Mir Qamar Hassan Razvi precludes the allegations of criminal trespass.
10
SKS,J Crl.P.No.878 of 2022
14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law due to the absence of material evidence, as such, this Court hereby dismisses the charges against the petitioner due to insufficient evidence and lack of prima facie case.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.415 of 2021 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.11.2024 PT