Telangana High Court
Kawada Hemalatha Sabitha vs The State Of Telangana on 7 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5175 of 2024
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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.451 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against the petitioners stating that he owned land admeasuring Ac.26.3/4 guntas in Survey No.182/E situated at Gudur Village. On 28.05.2017, the petitioners and others trespassed into his land and damaged the stone pillars erected around the land and threatened him to kill if he enters into the subject land. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.131 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5175 of 2024 vide C.C.No.451 of 2018, before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.
3. Heard Sri N. Joy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and baseless. He further submitted that the alleged allegations are purely civil in nature, as such, the Police has no role to play. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 is the owner of the property and the petitioners trespassed into the said property and also damaged the same, which requires trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5175 of 2024 Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the averments made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.
7. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14, reads as under:
"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."1
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5175 of 2024
8. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the matter is purely civil in nature and Police have no role to involve into the case, whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners entered into his land and damaged the stone pillars erected around the land and also threatened him to kill, if he enters into the subject land. Further, the statement of witnesses shows that originally the father of the petitioners sold the subject property to respondent No.2 and that even after selling the subject property, the petitioners entered into the subject property and damaged the same. Whether the petitioner entered into the property and damaged the stone pillars, requires trial. In view of the averments in the complaint and statements of witnesses, all the witnesses stated about the damage of stone kaddis and trespass.
9. In view of the above discussion and as per 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. 5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5175 of 2024
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, as the case is of the year 2017, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and further, both the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court in concluding the trial.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 07.11.2024 SAI