G.Gopala Rao, Nacharam, Hyd., vs State Of Ap. Rep. Pp And 3 Othrs.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4205 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.13913 of 2013
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is directed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

by the petitioner who is shown as second party in Crime No.362 of

2013 issued by Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad District

under Section 145 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said F.I.R.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

the fourth respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the material on record.

3. The second respondent-Inspector of Police, Kushaiguda

suo motu registered this case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The

allegations of the F.I.R. discloses that there is land dispute between

Udyog and Dalith Bahujan Plot Owners Society, Kapra,

Kushaiguda lead by its General Secretary Sri Gopal Rao and Sri

Prem Sagar, MLC, Adilabad District in sy.Nos.639/1, 634/1, 644/1,

647/1, 648, 654 totalling Ac.61-34 guntas of Kapra Village, near

Vampuguda which is owned and possessed by Sri K.Seshagiri Rao

and others. The land in survey numbers was divided into house

plots admeasuring 300 square yards each and was sold by the 2 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013

original pattedars M/s.Shamshabad Sathaiah, Shamshabad Mallesh,

both sons of Kistaiah, S.Surender Reddy and S.Siva Reddy both

sons of Ramulu or through their GPA holder and the members of

Udyog and Dalith Bahujan Society purchased the plots through

registered sale deeds after payment of consideration to the lawful

owners and taken possession of house plots and most of them are

residing at far of places outside Hyderabad and unable to protect

their house plots individually. Therefore, majority plot owners

decided to form a society to safeguard their house plots from

encroachments and formed society in the year 1998 and registered

vide No.5544/1998. It is also alleged that several persons

attempted to grab vacant land taking advantage of the helplessness.

Few of the land owners colluded with land grabbers and

threatening other plot owners to sell their plots to M/s.Sainath

Estates Pvt., Ltd., and Bhagyanagar Hotel Pvt. Ltd., for which

Mr.K.Premsagar Rao is the Managing Director for, a throw away

price. Moreover, society could not protect the plots as

said K.Premsagar Rao is the sitting M.L.C., as such, they advised

the plot owners approach civil Courts. Many owners filed civil 3 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013

suits and obtained injunction orders. Inspite of the same,

said K.Premsagar Rao recently kept his followers in the house plots

and threatening the members. It is also alleged that the first party

consist of 12 members and second party consists of 17 members

and they are having claims and counter claims in respect of the said

property and the criminal and civil cases are registered against each

other. The details of civil and criminal cases are registered against

the parties including the petitioner herein have been mentioned in

detail in the F.I.R. On examining the documents of both the parties

in respect of above dispute, land totally admeasuring

Ac.61.34 guntas of Kapra Village near Vampuguda bind over the

parties under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to avoid breach of peace and

tranquility problem at the disputed land which necessitated the

Inspector of Police to initiate the proceedings under Section 145

Cr.P.C. suo motu registering of the case and took-up investigation.

Being aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R. under Section 145

Cr.P.C. the present petition is filed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the

General Secretary of Udyog and Dalith Bahujan Plot Owners 4 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013

Society and he filed O.S.No.314 of 2008 in respect of his plot

No.89 situated at Kapra Municipality for injunction and the same

was decreed vide judgment dated 23.02.20211, which has attained

finality. The other members of Society also filed civil suits in

respect of their plots and orders are granted in their favour. It is

stated that the fourth respondent is the former MLC and real estate

businessman influenced respondent Nos.2 and 3 and based on

which second respondent registered suo motu F.I.R. under Section

145 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the same to the Executive Magistrate-

cum-Tahsildar for initiating further proceedings in the matter. It is

stated that the second respondent has no powers to register the

F.I.R. and initiate the proceedings. He further submits that Section

145 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure to be followed where dispute

concerning the immovable property or water is likely to cause

breach of peace, but it does not contain penal provision and the

Police Officer is the complainant or informant to the Executive

Magistrate and not the officer who receives information. As such

registration of F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not permitted 5 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013

under law. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition and quash the

proceedings.

5. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of

K.Guravaiah v.State of Andhra Pradesh1.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits

that the Inspector of Police in order to maintain peace and there is

likelihood of breach of peace between two groups has rightly

registered the case and referred the same to the third respondent-

Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar for initiating further

proceedings. There is every likelihood of breach of peace, if these

proceedings are quashed and therefore, prayed to dismiss the

petition and allow the third respondent to proceed as per law.

7. In K.Guravaiah supra, this Court at para No.5 held as

under:

Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not contain a penal provision much less deal with any type of offence whether cognizable or non- cognizable. Section 145 Cr.P.C. prescribes procedure to be followed where dispute concerning immovable property or water is likely to cause breach of peace. Under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. the Executive Magistrate passes an order in case the Executive Magistrate is satisfied from "a report of police officer or upon other information" that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists. Thus, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the police officer is the complainant of the informant to the Executive Magistrate. When the Police Officer is the complainant or the informant and is not the

2011 Crl.L.J.64 6 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013

officer who receives information, then question of registering the said information under Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all. The police officer acting under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is at the receiving end with reference to the information. Whereas a police officer in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not at the receiving end, but is at the forwarding stage with reference to the information. Therefore, question of registering a crime under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and forwarding F.I.R. to the Magistrate under Section 157 CDr.P.C. does not arise in case of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C."

8. In the instant case, the Inspector of Police have acted similarly

in the facts and circumstances stated in Guravaiah's case supra.

The Inspector of Police suo motu registered a case under Section

145 Cr.P.C. and took-up investigation. There is no dispute about

the provisions of Cr.P.C and settled principle of law that there must

be commission of offence and such offence may be cognizable or

non-cognizable offence for receiving information by the police

officer under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sending the same to the

Magistrate in the prescribed proforma under Section 157 Cr.P.C.

Without there being commission of an offence, the question of the

police officer receiving information under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or

sending a report in the prescribed form to the Magistrate under

Section 157 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all.

9. Section 145 Cr.P.C. empowers that if the Executive

Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon 7 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013

other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the

peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries

thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he can pass appropriate

orders. So it is necessary that the Magistrate should be satisfied, at

the time of drawing up the proceedings that there is, then existing a

likelihood of breach of the peace arising from the disputes between

the parties.

10. It appears from the allegations of the F.I.R. that there are

civil suits filed by one group against the other and which may

appear that there is likelihood of breach of peace, but invoking the

powers and registration of F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is an

abuse of power of the police officials. Section 145 Cr.P.C. clearly

lays down the procedure to be followed where dispute concerning

immovable property or water is likely to cause breach of peace.

Thus, in a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the police officer

is the complainant or the informant to the Executive Magistrate.

As stated supra, he cannot suo motu register the case and police

officer is the complainant or the informant who receives

information. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the 8 ASR,J Crlp_13913_2013

registration of crime under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is liable to be

quashed. Therefore, it is considered as a fit case to invoke the

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.to quash the proceedings.

11. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.362 of

2013 of Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad District, are hereby

quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

                                      ______________________
                                      A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
23.08.2022
Nvl
                      9                    ASR,J
                                         Crlp_13913_2013




HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY




     CRIMINAL PETITION No.5482 of 2013
              10    ASR,J
                  Crlp_13913_2013




02.08.2022
Nvl