Telangana High Court
V. Srikanth Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11908 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime No.505 of 2024 of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417 and 420 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 against the petitioner and other accused stating that One Sitamma filed a petitioner before him alleging that Rayudu cheated her by selling a plot admeasuring 100 square yards in Sy.No.523, Government Land, Christianpally Village, for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is further stated that the said Sitamma claimed the land which was part of the property of respondent No.2, where she built a temporary house in 120 square yards, which the Government demolished as it was on illegally constructed on 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11908 of 2024 the Government Land. In the year 2021, respondent No.2 sent a letter accusing Rayudu of encroaching the Government lands, creating plots, constructing houses, and selling them, as such, the case was registered as Crime No.604 of 2021 against him. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.505 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417 and 420 of IPC. Hence, the present criminal petition.
3. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.4 in the subject crime and that the FIR was registered based on the complaint given by respondent No.2, for the offenses under Sections 406, 417, and 420 of IPC, later added Sections 467, 468, 471, and 474 read with 34 of IPC. He further submitted that the complaint shows that Rayudu cheated Seethamma by selling government land, and the investigation of Mandal Revenue Inspector supported this claim. He further submitted that 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11908 of 2024 there is no involvement of the petitioner and his name was added without any allegation or evidence. He further submitted that the allegations do not constitute the offenses as alleged and that implicating the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the petitioner stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against petitioner does not arise. Hence, 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. Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the avermetns made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11908 of 2024 any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.
7. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1 , wherein in paragraph No.14, held 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."
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and a perusal of the material available on record, it is to be noted that accused No.1 misused the Government properties and created pattadars. Furthermore, there are specific allegations against this 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11908 of 2024 petitioner and the case is in investigation stage. This Court is of the opinion that the present case is not covered by the circumstances enumerated in "Bhajanlal Case". The allegations in the F.I.R. at this stage can't be held to be false or vindictive.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), since there are serious allegations against the petitioner which requires investigation, it is premature to determine their involvement without a thorough probe. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, rendering it liable for dismissal.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 20.11.2024 SAI