Sriram Bhadraiah, vs Jogiparthy Venkatesh Gupta,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1595 Tel

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2041 of 2020

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings

initiated against him in C.C.No.1356 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-VII Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

The facts in issue are as under:

The 1st respondent/de facto complainant lodged a report before

the police stating that on 27.08.2017 at about 1.45 P.M., he along with

one K.Srinvias, visited plot No.16/2, Kothapet Village in Sy.No.108,

which belongs to his cousin Manchikanti Madhusudhan, as it is for

sale. At that time, the petitioner/accused, who was present at the

spot, abused them and assaulted him on his left hand with the butt of

double barrel gun, as a result of which he sustained an injury. Basing

on the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chaitanyapuri

Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.497 of 2017 for the

offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. against the

petitioner/accused. After due investigation, the police filed the

charge sheet, which was taken cognizance and numbered as

C.C.No.1356 of 2017. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash

the proceedings of the said C.C.

After receiving the notice, there was no representation on

behalf of the 1st respondent either in-person or through a Counsel.

Hence, heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent and perused the

record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that

the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and he

has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that the son

of the petitioner and one Manchikanti Madhusudan-L.W.4 are

claiming rights over the plot No.16/2. The son of the petitioner by

name Sriram Bharath got registered the said plot in his favour by

virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 05.05.2005 vide

registered document No.4233 of 2005. On the other hand, said

Manchikanti Madhusudan claims that he has purchased the said

property vide document No.845 of 1999 dated 05.02.1999 and,

therefore, the entire dispute is purely civil in nature and that the 1st

respondent has deliberately converted the civil dispute into a

criminal case. The Counsel further submits that the petitioner filed a

discharge petition, which was dismissed by the trial Court on

24.07.2019 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also filed a

revision before the Sessions Court, but the same was dismissed on

17.12.2019. He also submits that the Apex Court has time and again

stated that there is a growing tendency amongst the business circles

to convert civil disputes into criminal cases only with a view to

pressurize the accused to come to their terms and that the same shall

not be encouraged. In support of his contention, he relied upon the

judgments of the Apex Court in Rajib Ranjan v. R.Vijay Kumar1;

Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited2 and State of

Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal3. He also submits that all the

allegations that have been made are fabricated and that no case is

made out against the petitioner and, therefore, continuation of the

proceedings would only be a futile exercise.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that after

thorough investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the

petitioner/accused and there is nothing wrong in it.

A perusal of the material on record would show that the son of

the petitioner and one Manchikanti Madhusudan-LW.4 are claiming

rights over the plot in question. The son of the petitioner got

registered the plot in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the

judgment of the Apex Court dated 05.05.2005 vide document No.4233

of 2005, whereas the said Manchikanti Madhusudan, who is the

cousin of the 1st respondent claims that he got purchased the property

vide document No.845 of 1999 dated 05.02.1999. Therefore, it can be

said that the contention of the petitioner that there is a dispute

between the parties with regard to the rights of the property and in

(2015) 1 SCC 513

(2006) 6 SCC 736

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

order to sort out the said dispute, the present complaint has been

lodged appears to be correct.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

since both the parties are claiming rights over the disputed property,

I am of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings

against the petitioner/accused will be a futile exercise and would

amount to abuse of the process of Court.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is

allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in

C.C.No.1356 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-VII-Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

09.06.2021 gkv/Gsn