Kesani Yedukondalu vs The State Of A.P., And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 296 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 296 AP
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kesani Yedukondalu vs The State Of A.P., And Another on 8 January, 2024

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.2513 OF 2018


ORDER:

The present criminal petition is filed seeking to call for the

records pertaining to FIR No.210 of 2017 dated 01.08.2018 before the

Bhimunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City and to quash the

same.

2. Whereas the police registered the crime for the offences

punishable under Sections 447 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land

Grabbing Act (for short "the Act").

3. The present criminal petition is assailed on the sole ground

that, as per the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, the offence

took place on 13.09.2011 and the report was lodged before the police

on 01.08.2017, there is a delay of six years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Sections 3 and

4 of the Act has no application to the petitioner, as the special Court

has not given any finding that the petitioner is a land grabber. To that

effect, he relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad in Crl.P.No.3157 of 2007 dated 17.09.2010.

Whereas, the High Court had set aside the Sections 3 and 4 of the Act,

on the ground that no finding was recorded by the special Court that

the petitioner therein is a land grabber, with a finding that: to

constitute an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, a Special

Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area has to record a specific

finding on the proceedings initiated under the Act, to the effect that

the accused is a land grabber, then only the accused can be

prosecuted for the said offences. In the absence of such finding, the

proceedings cannot be initiated under the Act.

5. In the present case also no such finding was recorded by the

special Court that the petitioner is a land grabber. Therefore, the said

order is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence,

the proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are hereby

quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as Hasmukhlal D.Vora and

another v. The State of Tamil Nadu1 for the proposition that:

inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case

of the prosecution.

7. In the present case, the offence took place on 13.09.2011 and

the report was lodged before the police on 01.08.2017, the delay was

not explained in the report. As the delay was not explained properly in

the report, an adverse influence can be drawn, as per the judgment

referred supra.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

8. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent submits that this

Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C and he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court reported as M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private

Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others2 whereas, the Hon'ble

Apex Court laid the guidelines, relevant paragraphs of the guidelines

extracted hereunder:

23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process

2021 AIR (SC) 1918

of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

9. In the present case it appears that the report was lodged by the

2nd respondent/defacto complainant with a malafide intention, as the

offence took place in the year 2011 and complaint was lodged in the

year 2017and the reasons for such delay was not explained and also

as incorporated under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and as per the

judgment referred supra land grabbing act comes into force only when

a specific finding was given by the special Court. In order to secure

the ends of justice and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

referred supra, delay is a ground for quashing the FIR.

10. In order to secure the ends of justice, this Court feels it

appropriate to allow the criminal petition. Hence, the Criminal

Petition is allowed and the FIR No.210 of 2017 dated 01.08.2018 is