Gottipati Chandra Sekhar vs State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2617 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                  WRIT PETITION No.7211 OF 2021
ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

- 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"....pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to charge sheet in P.R.C. No.12 of 2021 on the file of IV AJCJ-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally pursuant to private complaint registered as Crime No.643 of 2020 on the file of P.S. Gachibowli and QUASH the same in so far as the petitioner (Accused No.3) is concerned in the interest of justice,...."

2. Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.

R.S. Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Deepak

Misra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 to 3.

3. FACTS:

i) The petitioner herein is accused No.3 in P.R.C. No.12 of

2021. He is brother of accused No.2, who is the wife of

accused No.1, and Mrs. Kodali Sajini, the wife of

complainant. The petitioner is none other than brother-

in-law of the complainant. Thus, the dispute is among the

family members in respect of immovable property. The KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

offences alleged against him are under Sections - 307,

447, 427, 323, 192, 193, 209 & 211 read with 34, 109

and 120B of IPC.

ii) Respondent No.4 - complainant is Director of M/s. Shri

Lakshmi Ganapathy Industries Private Limited.

iii) In the year 2004, all the accused and Ms. Paladugu

Venkata Laxmi had participated in public auction held

pursuant to the recovery certificate issued in O.A.

No.1785 of 1999 and R.P. No.197 of 2002 issued by the

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in the matter of

M/s. Industrial Air Technics Limited and M/s. Industrial

Agriculture Engineers (India) Limited & others in respect

of land, admeasuring Acs.1.35 guntas in Survey No.90/2,

situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy.

iv) In the said auction, the accused and another were

declared as successful bidders and accordingly, a Sale

Certificate was issued on 25.04.2004 in favour of M/s.

Shri Lakshmi Ganapathy Industries Private Limited.

v) Thereafter, the said land was divided into seven plots.

vi) Out of seven plots, Plot Nos.1A, 1B and 1C, total extent

of 4,800 square yards, were purchased by the

complainant in the capacity of Managing Director of M/s.

Shri Lakshmi Ganapathy Industries Private Limited.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

vii) The petitioner herein had purchased plot No.3,

admeasuring 1000 square yards.

viii) Accused Nos.1 and 2 had purchased Plot No.4,

admeasuring 2000 square yards.

ix) Subsequently, disputes arose among the accused and

respondent No.4 - complainant over the aforesaid plots.

4. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

i) Respondent No.4 originally filed a complaint under

Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. before the XII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, and the learned

Magistrate had referred the same to P.S. Gachibowli

under Section - 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and

report.

ii) Accordingly, P.S. Gachibowli registered a case in Crime

No.643 of 2020 against the petitioner herein and accused

Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences and after

investigation filed charge sheet vide P.R.C. No.12 of

2021.

iii) During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the

complainant is having land in Survey No.90/2,

Gachibowli and neighbouring plots are owned by

accused Nos.1 to 3.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

iv) Accused Nos.1 to 3 started making illegal efforts to grab

10 feet wide road on the southern side of properties.

v) When the complainant prevented the accused from doing

so, accused No.1 threatened him with dire consequences

that they would cause harm with anti-social elements.

vi) Further, on 21.09.2019, accused No.1 and his men

criminally trespassed into 30 feet wide road which is on

the southern side plots of accused No.1 and the

complainant and caused harm.

vii) Accused persons also broke the container and thrown on

the plots of the complainant.

viii) Accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy language

and assaulted him.

ix) Men of Accused No.1 beat LW.3, driver of the

complainant and threatened to use criminal force.

x) Accused No.1 is highly influential person and tried to

attack the complainant personally with the help of his

men by moving the container on him with an intention to

eliminate him by one crane bearing No.TS 07FY 3187

while he was standing in the vicinity.

xi) At that time, when LW.3 intervened in the matter so as to

save the complainant, accused No.1 and his men beat

him.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

xii) Accused No.1 also threatened the complainant with dire

consequences by using foul words as "Ne Amma",

Lanjakodaka, Nee Anthu Chustanu", "Ninnu

Lepasthanu".

xiii) Later on 05.03.2020, accused Nos.2 and 3 went to the

site, looked at the complainant and accused No.2 abused

him in filthy language and threatened with dire

consequences saying that "Neve Theliviklavadiva, Nenu

Chepta, Na husband and Nenu gun petti lepasthamu,

then accused No.3 also abused him saying as "Ninnu

murder chepistnu, emianukuntunnavu etc., and further

threatened that they would grab his land.

xiv) Accused No.1 filed a complaint before Gachibowli

Police Station vide FIR No.520 of 2019, dated

21.09.2019, with an intention to cause harm to the

complainant, but ultimately it was referred to as "lack of

evidence".

xv) The complainant also complained to the GHMC

Authorities against accused No.1 about the encroachment

of 10 feet wide road out of 30 feet on southern side of

Plot No.4. On which, the GHMC Officials along with

Demolition Squad visited the scene and demolished the

encroachment done by accused No.1.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

xvi) Again in the month of October, 2020, accused No.1

encroached into the said road by erecting stones. Then,

GHMC authorities demolished the said encroachment.

xvii) The Zonal Commissioner clarified that their office has

issued LRS Approval for Plot No.A1, 1B and 1C in

Survey No.90/2 to an extent of 4015 square meters vide

proceedings No.LRS26092017121114, dated 26.09.2017

in favour of M/s. Shri Lakshmi Ganapathy Paper Mills

Limited represented by its Managing Director, the

complainant, on verification of documents and spot

inspection, in which width of the road mentioned as 215

feet wide road towards northern side of plot No.1B; 215

feet and 80 feet wide roads were shown towards northern

and western sides respectively for plot No.1A; and 30

feet wide road was shown towards southern side of Plot

No.1C.

xviii) Keeping the above in their mind, accused Nos.1 to 3 have

created nuisance and tried to eliminate the complainant

by Crane.

xix) Even, accused No.1 and others are restrained by way of

interim injunction passed in I.A. Nos.2480 and 2481 of

2019 in O.S. No.634 of 2019 by the learned V Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, and the said orders are

still subsisting.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

xx) The investigation done by the Investigating Officer

would reveal that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the

aforesaid offences and accordingly he filed the charge

sheet for the said offences against them.

5. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 and 2

are absconding and are evading from arrest and their whereabouts are

not known. It came to light that in order to escape from criminal

liability, accused Nos.1 to 3 had gone abroad and, therefore, requested

to issue NBW against accused Nos.1 to 3. Pursuant to the same, the

Magistrate had issued NBWs against them including the petitioner

herein.

6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

make the following submissions:

(i) The complainant lodged the present complaint

with mala fide intent to coerce the petitioner in

giving up his property.

(ii) M/s. Laxmi Ganapathy Mills Private Limited filed

M.P. No.207 of 2019 in R.P. No.197/2002 in O.A.

No.1785 of 1999 before the Recovery Officer,

DRT-I, Hyderabad for rectification deed to the

effect that the measurement of length of all the

plots along with 30 feet road on western boundary

in the plan annexed to the registered certificate of KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

sale No.5907/2004 dated 24.05.2004 be read as

444 feet instead of 429 feet; and the width of the

road on western side of the plots in the plan be

read as 80 feet wide road leading to GPRA

Quarters instead of 120 feet wide road, and the

said DRT-I vide order dated 19.11.2019, dismissed

the said application. As against the said order, an

appeal was filed vide Recovery Appeal No.5/2019

before the DRT-I, Hyderabad, and the same was

also dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2020.

(iii) Having failed in getting favourable orders in the

aforesaid proceedings, the complainant had chosen

to approach the Civil Court by way of a civil suit

vide O.S. No.2416 of 2019 on the file of VII

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar, against accused No.1 seeking declaration of

existing 30 feet wide road as public road and for

perpetual injunction. The petitioner herein is not a

party to the said suit. However, the said case was

disposed of as uncontested, as it was referred to

Lok Adalat.

(iv) The aforesaid company has also filed another civil

suit vide O.S. No.634 of 2019 on the file of the

XIII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner

herein seeking declaration, recovery of possession

and permanent injunction with regard to an extent

of 207 square feet equivalent to 23 square yards,

which is in occupation of the petitioner herein by

way of encroachment.

(v) The complainant filed a suit vide O.S. No.156 of

2020 on the file of XV Additional District Judge,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally, against the petitioner

herein and accused Nos.1 and 2 claiming damages

of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only)

towards expenditure incurred for malicious

prosecution, mental harassment, defamation,

insults and hardships.

(vi) Thus, the disputes, mentioned above, among the

parties are civil in nature, but the police without

considering the same, registered the present crime.

b) Learned senior counsel would also submit that having failed

to foist a complaint with Gachibowli Police Station, the complainant

with inordinate delay of nearly a year approached the Magistrate by

filing a complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. to take action against

the petitioner herein and others. The learned Magistrate instead of

rejecting the same, referred it to police for investigation and report

which is illegal.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

c) He would further submit that interestingly, the complainant

had given written complaints earlier to P.S. Gachibowli against

accused No.1 on different dates viz., 21.09.2019, 30.09.2019,

16.10.2019 and 27.09.2020, in which there was no mention or

reference about the petitioner herein as well as accused No.2. But,

surprisingly, in the present complaint, the complainant had chosen to

include the names of the petitioner herein as well as accused No.2 for

the alleged incident occurred on 05.03.2020 without any substantive

proof.

d) Learned senior counsel would further submit that the

petitioner is a resident of United States of America (USA) and,

therefore, the ingredients of Section - 447 of IPC and other offences

do not attract against him.

e) In support of the above submissions, learned senior counsel

has relied on various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court viz.,

(i) Priyanka Srivastava v.State of U.P.1;

(ii) Commissioner and Police v. Devender Anand2;

            (iii)     State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3;

            (iv)      C. Venugopal Reddy v. The State of A.P., rep.by its
                      P.P.4; and

            (v)       M/s. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
                      Sharaful Haque5.


  .   (2015) 6 SCC 287

  .   AIR 2019 SC 3807

  .   1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335

. Crl. P. No.11569 of 2011, decided on 10.01.2020

. 2005 Crl.L.J. 92 KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

f) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior counsel

sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the present

crime.

7. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.4:

a) Mr. L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondent No.4 would contend that, the petitioner herein is an Non-

Resident Indian (NRI) for the last 30 years, is incorrect for the reason

that in the registration certificates and other registered documents, his

address was being shown as resident of Hyderabad.

b) He would further contend that the petitioner herein along

with accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to murder the complainant

on 21.09.2019. On 05.03.2020, the petitioner herein along with

accused No.2 visited the site and threatened the complainant with the

help of anti-social elements.

c) Learned senior counsel would also contend that the

Magistrate, having gone through the entire material placed by the

complainant, had referred the matter to the police for investigation

and report. Thus, there is no error in registering the crime by the

police. Further, there are specific allegations mentioned in the

complaint by the complainant which are serious in nature and the

same were investigated by the Investigating Officer and filed charge

sheet. The correctness or otherwise of all such allegations are to be

decided during trial but not at this stage.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

d) Learned senior counsel would further submit that the

petitioner instead of facing the trial to prove his innocence approached

this Court by filing the present petition. In support of his contentions,

learned senior counsel relied on the following decisions:

(i) Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh6;

(ii) Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra7; and

(iii) Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra8.

e) With the above contentions, the learned senior counsel

sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

8. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

a) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would

contend that there are specific allegations mentioned in the complaint

with dates, place of offence and nature of offence etc., which are

serious in nature. The Investigating Officer having gone through the

statements of witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C.,

prima facie, came to the conclusion that there is a case and

accordingly filed the charge sheet. If at all, the petitioner is innocent

of the offences alleged against him, he can face the trial and prove his

innocence. Therefore, at this stage, the proceedings cannot be

. AIR 2021 SC 931

. AIR 2019 SC 847

. AIR 2021 SC 1918 KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

quashed. With the said contentions, he sought to dismiss the present

writ petition.

9. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) The above said submissions as well as the record would

reveal that Mr. Gottipati Chandra Sekhar (the petitioner herein -

accused No.3), Mrs. Vallurupalli Nalini (accused No.2) and Mrs.

Kodali Sajini (wife of complainant) are children of Mr. Gottipati

Venkateswara Rao. That is to say, accused No.2 and wife of

complainant are sisters while the petitioner herein is their brother.

Accused No.1 is the husband of Mrs. Nalini, accused No.2, and

complainant is co-brother of accused No.1, while brother-in-law of

accused No.3, and thus, there is close relationship among all of them.

ii) In the year 2004, the petitioner herein, accused Nos.1 and 2

and also Ms. Paladugu Venkata Laxmi, had participated in a public

auction held on 21.04.2004 and purchased land admeasuring Acs.1.35

guntas in Sy. No.90/2, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the Recovery Certificate issued in

O.S. No.1785 of 1999 and R.P. No.197 of 2002 issued by the Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in the matter of M/s. Industrial Air

Technics Limited and M/s. Industrial Agriculture Engineers (India)

Limited & others. A Sale Certificate was also issued in favour of M/s.

Shri Lakshmi Ganapathy Industries Private Limited, the petitioners

herein, accused Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Paladugu Venkata Laxmi on KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

25.04.2004. Thereafter, the said land was divided into seven (07)

plots.

iii) According to the petitioner herein, out of the said seven

plots, plot Nos.1A, 1B and 1C, total admeasuring 4,800 square yards,

were purchased in the name of M/s. Shri Lakshmi Ganapathy

Industries, to which the complainant is Managing Director. The

petitioner herein had purchased Plot No.3, admeasuring 1000 square

yards, and accused Nos.1 and 2 had purchased Plot No.4, admeasuring

200 square yards.

iv) It is relevant to note that after lapse of fifteen (15) years

from the said purchase, respondent No.4 - complainant had filed

Miscellaneous Application No.207 of 2019 on the file of Recovery

Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Hyderabad, for rectification of

Sale Certificate, dated 25.04.2004, and the same was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 preferred Appeal No.5

of 2019, which was also dismissed.

v) Thereafter, M/s. Shri Lakshmi Ganapathy Industries Private

Limited, represented by its Managing Director, respondent No.4

herein, filed O.S. No.2416 of 2019 before the file of VII Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, against

accused No.1 for declaration of existing 30 feet wide road as public

road and for perpetual injunction. The said case was disposed of by

referring it to Lok-adalat. Again, the said Company represented by KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

respondent No.4 filed O.S. No.634 of 2019 before the file of the XIII

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, against the petitioner

herein and accused Nos.1 and 2 for declaration, recovery of

possession and for permanent injunction. Respondent No.4 herein

also filed O.S. No.156 of 2020 before the file of XV Additional

District Judge, Cyberabad at Kukatpaly, against the petitioner herein

and accused Nos.1 and 2 claiming damages of Rs.4.00 Crores. The

civil cases in O.S. No.634 of 2019 and O.S. No.156 of 2020 are

pending.

vi) The record would further reveal that pursuant to the

complaint lodged by accused No.1, the police, Gachibowli Police

Station, had registered a case in Crime No.520 of 2019 on 21.09.2019,

however, later it was closed on 20.02.2020. While so, on 07.10.2020,

respondent No.4 herein had filed a complaint under Section - 200 of

Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate referred the same to the police,

Gachibowli under Section - 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and

report. Accordingly, the police registered a case in Crime No.643 of

2020 against the petitioner herein and other accused for the offences

under Sections - 307, 447, 427, 323, 192, 193, 209 and 211 read with

34, 109 and 120B of IPC and took up for investigation. The

Investigating Officer after completion of investigation laid the charge

sheet against the petitioner herein and other accused for the aforesaid

offences vide P.R.C. No.12 of 2021 against the accused including the

petitioner and issued NBWs against them.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

vii) A perusal of the complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C.

and the copies of plaints in the above civil suits would reveal that

there is a dispute with regard to the land admeasuring Acs.1.35 guntas

in Survey No.90/2 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal,

purchased by respondent No.4, the petitioner and others in public

auction. The dispute is mainly with regard to the total length of the

western side boundary of all plots including 30 feet internal road i.e.,

444 feet and width of the road on the western side is 80 feet. In fact,

the complainant filed Miscellaneous Application No.207 of 2019 in

R.P. No.197 of 2002 in O.A. No.1789 of 1999 for execution of

rectification deed on the ground that length of western boundary was

wrongly mentioned. It is relevant to note that the complainant filed

the said application after lapse of fifteen (15) years from the date of

Sale Certificate dated 25.04.2004. Considering the same, the

Recovery Officer dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the

same, respondent No.4 preferred appeal vide Recovery Appeal No.5

of 2019, and the DRT had also dismissed the same.

viii) According to Mr. S. Ravi, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, there is a specific finding in the said order passed by the

DRT that at that time, the appellant did not at all raise any dispute

with regard to western boundary of the subject property, and that the

complainant is guilty of forum shopping. In proof of the same,

learned senior counsel has filed a copy of order in Recovery Appeal

No.5 of 2019 in O.A. No.1785 of 1999.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

ix) In the complaint filed under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. as to

the date of offence, respondent No.4 has given the dates as

21.09.2019, 05.03.2020 and 18.09.2020. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner herein is a resident of USA. He was not in India on

21.09.2019 and 18.09.2020. Mr. L. Ravichander, learned senior

counsel representing Mr. Deepak Misra, learned counsel for

respondent No.4, did not dispute the said fact. Even the complaint

under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. discloses the said fact. More over, the

said fact is not disputed by respondent No.4 in his counter. Thus, the

petitioner was not in India on the said dates viz., 21.09.2019 and

18.09.2020.

x) In the complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C., respondent

No.4 alleges that on 05.03.2020, accused Nos.2 and 3 came to the site

and looking at him, they started using filthy words "Neve

Thelivikalavadiva, Nenu Chepta,Na husband and Nenu gun petti

lepasthamu" and Mr. Chandrashekar (petitioner herein) used foul

word saying that "Ninnu murder chepistnu, emianukuntunnavu etc.,",

and called some other anti-social elements and threatened him that

they will grab his land and cause inconvenience to him. They also

threatened to use criminal force in connivance with anti-social

elements and cause harm to him. Except the same, there is no

allegation against the petitioner herein. It is also not in dispute that

the petitioner herein was in India only on 05.03.2020.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

xi) According to Mr. S. Ravi, learned senior counsel, the

petitioner came to India and stayed for the period from 23.02.2020 to

15.03.2020 to attend ritual ceremonies of his mother's First Death

Anniversary. Thus, the allegations against the petitioner herein that

he used foul word, called some other anti-social elements, threatened

the complainant stating that they would grab his land, cause

inconvenience to him and they threatened to use criminal force in

connivance with anti-social elements and cause harm to him etc. are

all incorrect.

xii) A perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the

Investigating Officer in Crime No.643 of 2020 had examined

respondent No.4, Mr. Garlapati Vinay Kumar, an Electrical

Contractor, resident of Cherukuthota Colony, Saroornagar, Mr. Balu

Naik, driver of respondent No.4, Mr. Kandakatla Srikanth Reddy,

private employee, resident of Anjali Gardens, Manikonda, Hyderabad,

Mr. Kolukulakota Venkata Nagendram, private employee, resident of

Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, and Smt. Sunitha, AADM-Town

Planning Officer, GHMC, Serilingampally Circle, a circumstantial

witness, as LWs 1 to .6. A perusal of statements of LWs.2, 4 and 5

would reveal that they are residents of Saroornagar, Manikonda and

Red Hills respectively and that they were at the land in Sy.No.90/2 of

Gachibowli Village on 21.09.2019, 05.03.2020 and 18.09.2020, and

all of them have stated that respondent No.4 is having land in

Sy.No.90/2 of Gachibowli village, and when the owners of adjacent KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

plots tried to encroach 10 feet wide road illegally, respondent No.4

resisted the same. Accused No.1 threatened respondent No.4. But,

there are discrepancies in their statements with regard to the

allegations made against the petitioner herein in respect of the alleged

incident occurred on 05.03.2020.

xiii) The statement of LW.2, driver of respondent No.4, is

altogether different. Even, LWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 never stated before the

Investigating Officer that the petitioner herein attempted to commit an

offence of murder on respondent No.4. There is no allegation with

regard to criminal trespass, mischief, causing loss or damage etc.

There is no allegation of causing hurt, much less voluntarily causing

hurt etc. Like-wise, there is no allegation with regard to making false

entry in any book of record, intentionally giving false evidence,

fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or annoy any

person, makes in a Court of justice any claim which he knows to be

false. Even then, the Investigating Officer without appreciating the

statements of witnesses laid the charge sheet against the petitioner

herein for the aforesaid offences. A perusal of the charge sheet and

the contents of statements of witnesses would reveal that they lack the

ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein.

xiv) As discussed above, the dispute among the petitioner,

other accused and respondent No.4 is with regard to the boundary.

They had purchased the land in the year 2004. Respondent No.4

started making claims after lapse of fifteen (15) years. He filed the KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

application before the Recovery Officer of DRT after lapse of 15

years seeking rectification of sale certificate and the same was

dismissed, and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed. The civil

cases in O.S. No.634 of 2019 seeking declaration, recovery of

possession and for permanent injunction, O.S. No.156 of 2020

claiming damages of Rs.4.00 Crores and O.S.2416/2019 seeking

declaration of existing 30 feet wide road as public road and for

perpetual injunction, are pending. The pleadings in the said civil

cases are contrary to the allegations made in the complaint under

Section - 200 of Cr.P.C.

xv) It is relevant to note that though the alleged incidents took

place on 21.09.2019, 05.03.2020 and 18.09.2020, respondent No.4 has

filed the complaint on 07.10.2020. However, respondent No.4 claims

that he lodged three complaints earlier with police and that the police

did not act upon them, but he has not filed any acknowledgments in

proof of the same. In the complaint dated 30.09.2019, he sought

police protection, in which he has made reference of the complaint

dated 21.09.2019. Respondent No.4 has also sought police protection

vide complaint dated 16.10.2020. The contents of the said complaints

would reveal that they are contrary to the contents of complaint under

Section - 200 of Cr.P.C.

xvi) It is also relevant to note that the learned V Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, granted interim injunction order on

15.12.2020 in I.A. Nos.2480 /2019 in O.S. No.634/2019 restraining KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

the petitioner herein and other accused from alienating or transferring

the petition Schedule - A and B properties by creating any document

of sale, mortgage, lease or otherwise, pending disposal of the suit, and

also passed orders on 15.12.2020 in I.A. No.2481 of 2019 in O.S.

No.634 of 2019 restraining the petitioner herein and other accused,

their agents, nominees, transferees from changing the nature of

petition Schedule - A and B properties by creating any document of

sale, mortgage, lease or otherwise, pending disposal of the suit. By

the date of lodging the earlier complaints as well as the compliant

under Section -200 of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid interim injunction orders

were not in existence. More over, vide order dated 15.12.2020, the

learned Judge restrained the petitioner herein and other accused not to

change the nature of schedule property and not to alienate / transfer of

the Schedule - A and B properties. Thus, it is clear that there is no

order that exists as on the date of filing the complaints restraining the

petitioner and other accused from interfering with petition Schedule -

A and B properties. It is relevant to note that the suit in O.S. No.634

of 2019 is for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent

injunction, and the same is pending adjudication. Another suit in O.S.

No.156 of 2020 filed by respondent No.4 seeking damages of Rs.4.00

Crores is also pending. In view of the same, it is clear that there are

civil disputes pending among the petitioner, other accused and

respondent No.4 herein with regard to the subject property, more

particularly, boundary dispute. Admittedly, respondent No.4 started

the claim after lapse of fifteen (15) years from the date of purchase of KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

the subject property. It is also relevant to note that the complainant,

the petitioner and other accused are close relatives. The above said

proceedings including the civil suits are pending among them. During

pendency of the said suits, respondent No.4 filed the complaint under

Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and

2, who are NRIs.

xvii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Ali Khan v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh9 categorically held that where there are

serious factual disputes, which are of civil nature, for which civil suits

are pending, allowing the proceedings to go on is nothing but abuse of

process of law. The Apex Court referring to the principle laid down

by it in other cases and on examination of facts of the said case,

quashed the FIR against accused therein. Even in the present case,

civil cases are pending and that the petitioner herein was not in India

on 21.09.2019 and 18.09.2020. There were no allegations with regard

to committing of attempt to murder, criminal trespass, mischief etc.

As discussed supra, the contents of the complaints, statements of

witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating

Officer and the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences

alleged against the petitioner herein. Thus, continuation of the

proceedings in PRC No.12 of 2021 on the file of Additional Junior

Civil Judge - cum - XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Kukatpally against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. More

. (2020) 12 SCC 51 KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

over, the present case squarely falls in one of the seven parameters

laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal10.

xviii) In C. Venugopal Reddy4 this Court referring to the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Devender Anand2 has

categorically held that if complainant is trying to cloak a civil dispute

with a colour of criminal nature, then it falls under the ambit of

exceptional circumstances, in which the High Court can exercise its

inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal

proceedings against accused.

xix) In M/s. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd5. the Apex

Court held that allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute

any of the offences of which the cognizance has been taken by the

Magistrate and hence it must be quashed by the High Court in

exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.

xx) Though, Mr. S. Ravi, learned senior counsel contends that

respondent No.4 has not filed sworn affidavit in terms of Section -

156 (3) of Cr.P.C., along with complaint under Section - 200 of

Cr.P.C. and that the learned Magistrate without verifying the same,

referred it to the police, Gachibowli, for investigation and report,

which is in violation of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in

Priyanka Srivastava1, did not press the said ground during the course

of arguments.

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

xxi) Mr. L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel, would

contend that the contents of the charge sheet constitute the ingredients

of offences alleged against the petitioner herein; and that the

Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet after completion of

investigation in a fair and transparent manner. Thus, no fault can be

found with the contents of the charge sheet; and that the defence taken

by the petitioner herein cannot be considered in a writ petition under

Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, and in support of the same,

he has relied upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in

Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra11.

Referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Skoda

Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar

Pradesh12, the learned senior counsel would contend that this Court

has to exercise its inherent power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. in

rarest of rare cases and accused herein do not fall under the said

category. He has also relied on the principle laid down in M/s.

Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of

Maharashtra13, and would contend that there are triable issues and

the petitioner herein has to face trial to prove his innocence.

xxii) Mr. L. Ravichander, the learned senior counsel placing

reliance on the decisions in A.C. Narayanan v. State of

Maharashtra14; S.K. Nooruddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh15; Dr.

. AIR 2019 SC 847

. AIR 2021 SC 931

. AIR 2021 SC 1918

. (2015) 12 SCC 203 KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

Jayant Daniel Thorat v. State of Punjab16 and Parbatbhai Aahir @

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujrat17 would

contend that a GPA/SPA Holder cannot file writ petition and the delay

aspect has to be considered by the Investigating Officer. In A.C.

Narayanan14, the Apex Court held that a complaint filed by power of

attorney holder is maintainable. A perusal of the special power of

attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Mr. Hemendra Allu

would reveal that the petitioner has executed the said GPA delegating

certain powers to the attorney holder including pursuing the

proceedings and filing the cases in all Courts etc. Therefore, the

contention of the learned senior counsel that the present writ petition

filed by the SPA holder representing the petitioner is not maintainable

is unsustainable.

xxiii) It is relevant to note that in Mahesh Co-operative

Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar

Bung18 the Apex Court referring to the principle laid down in M/s.

Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited13 and other judgments

categorically held that in M/s. Neeharika (supra) certainly allowed

space for the High Court to pass an interim order of the nature

impugned therein, "in exceptional cases with caution and

circumspection, giving brief reasons". What is frowned upon in

Neeharika (supra) is the tendency of the Courts to pass blanket,

. 2020 SCC OnLine AP 182

. 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21734

. (2017) 9 SCC 641

. SLP (Crl.) No.3869 of 2021, decided on 20.07.2021 KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

cryptic, laconic, non speaking orders reading "no coercive steps shall

be adopted". In Paragraph No.60 of the Report in Neeharika (supra),

the Apex Court recognized that there may be allegations of abuse of

process of law, converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with

a view to pressurize the accused.

10. CONCLUSION:

i) Thus, in view of the above said discussion, the principle laid

down by the Apex Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private

Limited13 and Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Shareholders

Welfare Association18 is squarely applicable to the facts of the

present case. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner

herein in P.R.C. No.12 of 2021 is an abuse of process of law.

Respondent No.4, brother-in-law of the petitioner, during pendency of

the above civil cases and after lapse of fifteen (15) years is trying to

cloak civil dispute into criminal and, therefore, he cannot be allowed

to do the same. Thus, viewed from any angle, continuation of the

criminal proceedings in P.R.C. No.12 of 2021 against the petitioner

herein is impermissible and, therefore, the proceedings in the said

PRC are liable to be quashed.

ii) The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the

proceedings in P.R.C. No.12 of 2021 on the file of IV AJCJ-cum-XII

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, are hereby quashed

against the petitioner - accused No.3.

KL,J W.P. No.7211 of 2021

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 17th September, 2021 Mgr