Telangana High Court
Chalasani Ram Mohan Rao vs State Of Telangana on 6 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9364 OF 2021
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 petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.595 of 2021 on the file of XXIV-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayath Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').
2. The facts of the case are that on 04.03.2021 the defacto complainant-2nd respondent gave a complaint stating that their family purchased land admeasuring Ac.13.25 guntas in Sy.No.141 of Nadergul Village, Gurramguda Grampanchayat vide registered sale deeds from Sri M.Venkat Rao, in the year 1996 and thereafter a layout was made in the said extent which is known as Swamy Narayan Nagar and many of the plots were sold out except few plots. Some of the houses were constructed and started residing in them. It is stated that the petitioner and others have illegally entered into his lands by removing the boundary stones and when questioned, they threatened him 2 with dire consequences and with the help of others, he thwarted their attempts. It is also stated that petitioners and others also threatened him that they will come again and occupy the land. The 2nd respondent is having title and he is peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. As the land prices are hiking the petitioners with an ulterior motive to make wrongful gain has illegally trespassed into the land of 2nd respondent and trying to grab the same. Hence, requested to take action against the petitioners.
3. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri B.Karthik Narayan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner acquired Ac.9.29 guntas in Sy.No.141/2 of Gurramguda village and alienated Ac.5.39 guntas out of Ac.9.29 guntas. Now he is the sole and absolute owner of Ac.3.30 guntas and his name is also mutated in the revenue records. That the Forest Department has also issued proceedings dated 26.06.2001 stating that the boundary lines of Forest Department are demarcated and it has no claim in respect of the property belonging to the 1st petitioner. The 3 subject property is also demarcated by the Mandal Surveyor of Balapur Mandal under a panchanama. While so, the 2nd respondent and his henchmen attempted to trespass into the land of 1st petitioner and threatened him and his family, hence, he filed a complaint against 2nd respondent before Vanasthaliputam police station vide FIR No.150 of 2021. As a counter blast the 2nd respondent filed this complaint against the petitioners. It is further contended that the 1st petitioner also filed O.S.No.201 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for declaration of the sale deed of 2nd respondent as null and void and for consequential perpetual injunction which is pending. He further contended that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence collected does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. When the 1st petitioner is the owner of land, the question of his trespassing into his own property does not arise. Earlier petitioners filed Crl.P.No.3748 of 2021 against the present FIR and this Court directed the investigating officer to strictly follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and also the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar Vs 4 State of Bihar 1. The present complaint is filed a day after the complaint filed by the 1st petitioner in order to harass the petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent purchased the property to an extent of Ac.13.25 guntas, made a venture, sold many of the plots and all the purchasers have constructed their houses. The remaining 49 plots were kept in possession of 2nd respondent and other family members. The 2nd respondent also fenced the entire venture and constructed compound wall on the south side, whereas A.1 and A.2 purchased Ac.9.29 guntas in Sy.No.141/2 and Ac.3.14 guntas in Sy.No.141/3 and sold out certain part of land and now A.1 is possessing Ac.3.39 guntas, but they are claiming part of land in the Venture in Swamy Narayan Colony, illegally trespassed into the land, removed the boundary stones and damaged the community hall and compound wall to some extent and they are leveling the land. When the 2nd respondent questioned them, the petitioners abused him in filthy language and all the said issues require 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 5 trial. As such prayed the Court to dismiss this criminal petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, both the parties have purchased property in Sy.No.141. Earlier, 1st petitioner gave a complaint before Vanasthaliputam Police against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has also admitted that the petitioners are having lands in Sy.No.141/2 and 141/3. According to the petitioners, the land was demarcated by the Mandal Surveyor, the panchanama dated 29.01.2021 and the proceedings No.3573/2001/86 dated 26.06.2001 issued by the Forest Department shows that petitioners herein are the owners of property. The record further shows that civil suit filed by the 1st petitioner vide O.S.No.201 of 2021 filed for declaration of sale deed of 2nd respondent as null and void and consequential perpetual injunction herein against the 2nd respondent which is also pending, shows that there are civil disputes pending between the parties. However the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners in Paramjeet Batra Vs State of 6 Uttarakhand and others 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
7. In the present case admittedly, the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent are having lands in Sy.No.141. The charge sheet also shows that both parties are having lands in the said survey number, the Mandal Surveyor also demarcated the boundaries under a panchanama and the Forest Department has also issued proceedings. Furthermore, suit filed by the 1st petitioner is also pending between the parties. The allegations against petitioners are that they encroached into the land of 2nd respondent and damaged the compound wall and community hall. There are civil disputes pending between the parties and suit is also filed by the 1st petitioner. The boundary disputes 2 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 7 have to be decided by the civil Court. That apart the panchanama conducted also does not disclose any damaged area and the whole complaint discloses civil transactions. As such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and the proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.595 of 2021 on the file of XXIV-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayath Nagar are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :06.11.2024 Rds