Telangana High Court
Syed Arif vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 2 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in C.C.No.94 of 2021 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.')
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Moinabad Police Station stating that ten months back, prior to the filing of the complaint, he purchased land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas, in Sy.No.231, situated at Qutubuddianguda Village Moinabad Mandal, from one Haji Mohammed Pasha, who is his brother-in-law. It is further stated that accused No.1 was 2 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022 having land admeasuring Ac.02.00 guntas beside the land of respondent No.2, as such, accused No.1 is claiming that he is having Ac.0.20 guntas in the land of respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit before the trial Court and the same is pending. It is further stated that on 04.10.2020, the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and erected the stone kadis and beaten him with hands and axe, due to which, respondent No.2 received bleading injury on his right hand.
4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.435 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 447, 427 and 506 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.94 of 2021 before the learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate. Hence, the criminal petition was filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them.
5. Heard Sri B. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on 3 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022 behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri Mohammed Adam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Haji Mohammed Pasha is the maternal uncle of the petitioners and there are civil disputes between the petitioners and said Haji Mohammed Pasha. In fact, the petitioners are the victims in the hands of respondent No.2. Previously, the petitioners gave complaint against respondent No.2, but the Police did not register the case against him. He further submitted that the Police intentionally registered the case against the petitioners in the interest of respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioners sustained injuries and without considering the same, the Police registered a false case against them without conducting any enquiry.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners erected the stone kadis in their land under the guidance of revenue officials. Therefore, the averments in the complaint do not constitute any offence against the petitioners as there is no damage to the property of respondent No.2, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that there are case and counter case between the parties and the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, which require trial. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions.
9. In the light of the submissions made by both the parties and a perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that there are civil disputes between the parties. The main allegation against the petitioners is that they trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and erected stone kadis and beat respondent No.2.
10. 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 5 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022 any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.
11. 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."
12. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, there are civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.2 filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction and the same is pending before the trial 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022 Court. Admittedly, the petitioners and respondent No.2 both are the land owners of their respective lands and situated at the same place and that there are case and counter case are filed by each other. Whether, the petitioners trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and erected the stone kadis cannot be decided at this stage, and the same requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the averments in the complaint do not constitute any offence and as such, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed.
13. 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 petitions to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the same are liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 02.09.2024 SAI