Budida Rajaiah, Karimnagar Dist. ... vs S.H.O., Manthani P.S., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1999 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.P.No.16174 OF 2014
ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in

pursuance of the F.I.R in Cr.No.202 of 2014 of Manthani Police

Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the

record.

3. The second respondent filed a complaint before police

alleging that she is the owner of land an extent of Acs.0-20 Gts., in

Sy.No.367 of Nagaram Village and raised seasame and green gram

crops. On 09.08.2014, at about 11:30 AM., when she went to her

field, she found that the entire land was damaged by ploughing the

same with the help of tractor. On enquiry, she came to know that

her brother i.e., petitioner/A-1 instigated the petitioner/A-2 to

damage the entire crop. She further alleged that in the year 2005,

when her brother did the same thing, she reported to the

Superintendent of Police. Further, on the instructions of his

brother, the revenue officials are not accepting taxes. Upon which,

the second respondent had approached this court by filing

W.P.No.25738 of 2014 and obtained interim orders on 03.09.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the second

respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2005 before the learned

Junior Civil Judge, Manthani seeking perpetual injunction in

respect of the subject property. The said suit was dismissed by

judgment and decree dated 12.07.2011. Aggrieved thereby, she

filed appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2011 before the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Manthani. The said appeal was also dismissed confirming

the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Questioning the

same, she preferred second appeal in S.A.No.933 of 2012 before

this court, but the same was also dismissed by judgment dated

15.11.2012.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that

petitioners are the absolute owners of the schedule property and the

second respondent is not having any right, title or possession over

the schedule property. Since the petitioners are the real owners of

the land, the registration of crime for the alleged offences would

amount to abuse of process of law and prays for quashing the

proceedings in F.I.R.No.202 of 2014.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the

second respondent failed to prove that she is the owner and

possessor of the schedule property before the courts below and

after losing the battle in civil litigation, she filed the present

criminal petition and the same amounts to abuse of process law.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on a

decision of the Apex Court in RAJIB RANJAN AND OTHERS

v. R.VIJAY KUMAR1.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

contends that the investigation may be permitted to continue and if

the petitioners are found to be the real owners, the police will close

further proceedings against them and as such prayed for dismissal

of the criminal petition.

(2015)1 SCC 513

8. From a perusal of the record, including the copies of the

judgments of the courts below filed by learned counsel for the

petitioners along with criminal petition, it appears the second

respondent herein filed O.S.No.77 of 2005 before the learned

Junior Civil Judge, Manthani seeking perpetual injunction in

respect of the subject property. The said suit was dismissed by

judgment and decree dated 12.07.2011. Aggrieved, she filed

appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2011 before the Senior Civil Judge,

Manthani. The said appeal was also dismissed. Challenging the

same, she preferred second appeal S.A.No.933 of 2012 before this

court, but the same was also dismissed by judgment dated

15.11.2012.

9. Considering the judgments passed by the trial court,

appellate court as well as this court, it is clear that the petitioners

are the absolute owners and possessors of the schedule property

and suppressing the said fact, the second respondent approached

the police and registered a case against the petitioners.

10. A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint discloses

that the second respondent is the owner of the agricultural land and

she raised seasame and green gram crops. On 09.08.2014, at about

11:30 AM., the entire crop was damaged by petitioners/A-1 and

A-2 by using tractor. The said allegations are made only with an

intention to convert the civil litigation into a criminal case. It also

appears from the documents filed by the petitioners that the second

respondent lost before the courts below about her rights over the

property and still she claims rights over the property and files a

criminal complaint alleging trespass and damage to the property.

Since the person who got a bona fide right over the property gained

entry into the property as owner himself, it does not amount

criminal trespass. It appears that possession of the said property is

decided by courts below and registering the case by suppressing

the material facts about the ownership and possession of the

property would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is

considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings against the

petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in pursuance of the

F.I.R in Cr.No.202 of 2014 of Manthani Police Station,

Karimnagar District, are hereby quashed.

12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 19.04.2022 Lrkm