Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mungara Vikram Kumar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 April, 2024

    APHC010144122020

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                         AT AMARAVATI                        [3396]
                                  (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                          TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
                           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                                            PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1953/2020
Between:
Mungara Vikram Kumar Reddy                                 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
                                              AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and                  ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

      1. P S P SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

      1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)


The Court made the following:
ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of

proceedings against him in Crime No.58 of 2020 on the file of

Buchireddypalem Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections

447, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.

1 for short 'Cr.P.C' 2 for short 'IPC'

2. The allegations made in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:

a. Respondent No.2 has a family property admeasuring Ac.6.16 cents in

Sy.No.143-2 and Sy.No.144/1 in Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. Though she is the owner of the said land, Petitioner and

his family members are not permitting her to cultivate the said land and they

obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said land. From

the past three years, she has been cultivating the said land and the Petitioner

is not permitting her to do so by sending his men.

b. While so, on 10.03.2018 at about 8.30 a.m., while her men were

cutting the crop, Petitioner came there, threatened them with dire

consequences, cut the crop and took away the same by a tractor. On coming

to know about the same, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed the

present petition seeking quashment of the same on the following grounds:

a. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are absolutely false and

the same is lodged only to harass him.

b. The entire dispute is a civil dispute and the Petitioner and the

Complainant are close relatives and are the common owners of various

extents of land.

c. Petitioner and her paternal aunt namely K.Annapurna are the absolute

owners of the subject land and the Revenue Authorities also issued Pattadar

Pass Book and title deed in their favour. While so, on 09.01.2017 Respondent

No.2 filed an Appeal under R.O.R. Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer

for cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deed issued by the Tahsildar in

favour of the Petitioner and K.Annapurna, without making the Petitioner as a

party.

d. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed order in RC J 107/2017 by

cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deeds. There is no provision for

filing appeal under R.O.R.Act and the same is not sustainable.

e. K.Annapurna filed W.P.No.38687 of 2017 before this Court challenging

the orders passed by The R.D.O, Nellore and this Court was pleased to pass

interim suspension orders on 16.11.2017.

f. Respondent No.2 again approached the Tahsildar for issuance of

pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her faovur and also for possession

certificate.On receipt of the notice from the Tahsildar, Petitioner submitted a

representation by narrating the facts.

g. Petitioner also filed W.P.No.8453 of 2020 to prohibit the Tahsildar from

conducting enquiry and to decide the issue of possession and title over the

subject land and this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings in

pursuance of the enquiry initiated by the Tahsildar.

h. Respondent No.2 with the help of Revenue Authorities, is trying to grab

the property of the Petitioner.

i. Petitioner and his paternal aunt K.Annapurna are the owners of the

subject land and hence, the question of trespass of theft of any paddy, does

not arise. In March, 2019 Petitioner lodged a complaint in FIR No.80 of 2019

against Respondent No.2 under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC

as she tried to trespass into the subject land. Hence, as a counterblast,

Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint.

j. Respondent No.2 with the help of Revenue Officials, is trying to enter

her name in the Revenue Records in respect of the subject property and has

been harassing the Petitioner with the help of Police and filed the present

complaint with false allegations. Therefore, continuation of proceedings

against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash

the proceedings against the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf

of Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.1 would submit that the

allegations leveled against the Petitioner are absolutely false and the same is

lodged with a view to harass the Petitioner. He would submit that the entire

dispute is a civil dispute and the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are close

relatives and they are the common owners of various extents of lands. It is

also submitted that the Revenue Authorities issued pattadar passbook and

title deed in favour of the Petitioner and her paternal aunt K.Annapurna with

regard to the subject property. As such, the Petitioner has not committed the

offences alleged against her. It is contended that the present complaint has

been lodged with false and untenable allegations, as a counterblast to the

complaint lodged by the Petitioner in Crime No.80 of 2019 against Respondent

No.2. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an

abuse of process of the Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel

for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta & another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Department of Home & another3, Commission of Police & Others Vs.

Devender Anand & Others4 and High Court of Telangana in K.Amaravani

Vs. State of Telangana and others5.

6. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner

would reveal prime facie case against the Petitioner. Absolutely there are no

grounds to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, now the point

that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime

(2019) 11 SCC 706

2019 LawSuit (SC) 1439

2014 LawSuit (Hyd) 1034

No.58 of 2020 on the file of Buchireddypalem Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 379 IPC?

Determination by the Court

8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages

that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to

make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the

Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to

secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not

functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its

powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and

circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling

reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against

sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Petitioner/Accused

No.1 and Respondent No.2 are close relatives and they are common owners

of various lands. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

Petitioner/Accused No.1 that, one K.Annapurna, who is the paternal aunt of

the Petitioner is the owner of and possessor of the agricultural land of Ac.6.16

cents in Sy.Nos.143-2 & 144/1A4 situated at Vavveru Village,

Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and out of the total land,

K.Annapurna gave land admeasuring Ac.2.25 cents to the Petitioner and she

has been in occupation of the remaining extent of land in an extent of Ac.3.91

cents. Perusal of the record shows that the Revenue Authorities issued Form

1B in her favour with regard to said property.

10. Further, a suit in O.S.No.50 of 1998 was filed by one of the co-sharers

of the total joint family properties before the Court of Principal District Judge,

Nellore, in which said K.Annapurna was shown as Defendant No.8 and the

father of the Petitioner herein was shown as Defendant No.4. A preliminary

decree dated 08.11.2004 was also passed therein and K.Annapurna and the

father of the Petitioner herein were allotted one such share in Plant A

schedule properties. The subject property is Item No.3 of the Plaint 'A'

schedule property. If such being the case, the question of criminal trespass

into the subject property by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 does not arise. If

the offence under Section 447 IPC does not attract, the consequential

offences under Sections 427 and 379 IPC also do not attract against the

Petitioner/Accused No.1.

11. Furthermore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the Appeal filed by

Respondent No.2 under R.O.R Act, passed orders in RC J 107/2017 cancelling

the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the Petitioner and

K.Annapurna and the said orders were suspended by this Court in

W.P.No.38687 of 2017 on 16.11.2017 and the name of the Petitioner has

been continuing in the revenue records. It is the contention of the learned

counsel for the Petitioner that he lodged a complaint in FIR No.80 of 2019

against Respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506

read with 34 IPC and as a counterblast to the said case, the present complaint

has been lodged, with false allegations.

12. The entire dispute revolves round the subject property and there

involves the dispute of title and possession over the subject land. The

allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil

dispute and Respondent No.2 resorted to criminal prosecution against the

Petitioner by inviting the Police to be interfered with the civil litigation. It is a

settled principle of law that interference of the Police in civil disputes would

amount to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process

of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings

against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.58 of 2020 on the file of

Buchireddypalem Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections

447, 427 and 379 IPC.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.04.2024 Dinesh

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Dt.02.04.2024

Dinesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1953 of 2020 Between:

MUNGARA VIKRAM KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. VISWANATHA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 45 YRS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O VEDAIPALEM, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUCHIREDDIPALEM POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

2. MUNGARA MALINI, W/O LATE VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY, FLAT NO.5, P.R APPARTMENTS, NEAR VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL, BUCHIREDDYPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 02.04.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Her Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

* THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1953 of 2020

% 02.04.2024

Between:

MUNGARA VIKRAM KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. VISWANATHA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 45 YRS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O VEDAIPALEM, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUCHIREDDIPALEM POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

2. MUNGARA MALINI, W/O LATE VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY, FLAT NO.5, P.R APPARTMENTS, NEAR VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL, BUCHIREDDYPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):