Telangana High Court

Pindiga Karuna Sagar vs The State Of Telangana on 17 March, 2022

Bench: K.Lakshman

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2493 OF 2022

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings in

Cr.No.52 of 2022, pending on the file of Chivemla Police Station,

Suryapet District. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and

2 in the said crime. The offences alleged against them are

under Sections 420, 504 read with 506 and 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

Perused the record.

3. The 1st petitioner herein is Deputy Executive

Engineer in Panchayatraj Department and the 2nd petitioner is

Tahsildar. The allegations against them are that the 2nd

respondent and others have handed over six decrees to the

father of the 1st petitioner herein and also agreements with a

request to get pattadar passbooks and also to effect the

mutation proceedings in Tahsildar Office concerned with regard

to the land in Sy.Nos.302, 309 and 327 (total 19 survey

numbers) of Kudakuda Village. The petitioners have promised

them that they will get mutation proceedings and also obtain

pattadar passbooks in favour of the 2nd respondent and others.

Therefore, the 2nd respondent and others have promised to give

Ac.0-14 gts of land and also one current motor as gift.

Accordingly, they have executed a gift deed in respect of Ac.0-14

gts of land and also gave them a current motor as gift as

promised. Petitioners have obtained mutation proceedings in

favour of 2nd respondent and there is shortage of Ac.2.21 gts of

land to that of actual extent of land of 2nd respondent. There is

also allegation that the petitioners herein have deleted tank

bund in the mutation proceedings. Thus, the petitioners have

cheated the 2nd respondent. There are specific allegations

against the petitioners herein by other owners of the subject

property. The 2nd respondent and other witnesses have erected

a tent on 11.03.2022 in Sy.No.316 of Kuda Kuda Village and

the 1st petitioner and others removed the said tent on

12.03.2022 at midnight. They have threatened the 2nd

respondent and others with dire consequences. Thus, both the

petitioners i.e., Deputy Executive Engineer and Tahsildar

respectively cheated the 2nd respondent and others.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would

submit that the Investigating Officer has recorded the

statements of four witnesses. All the four witnesses have

specifically stated about the cheating committed by the

petitioners herein. According to L.W.2, there is less extent of

Ac.0.32 gts of land, L.W.3 0.07 gts and so also L.W.4 is 0.37 gts

of land while effecting the mutation proceedings. Thus, there

are specific allegations against both the petitioners herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that the transactions between the petitioners and the 2nd

respondent are civil in nature. There is delay in lodging the

complaint. According to the learned counsel, the 1st petitioner

is working in Nizamabad and the 2nd petitioner is working in

Bhongir at the relevant point of time. Both the petitioners and

the 2nd respondent are close relatives. The 2nd respondent and

other owners of the property have exerted pressure on the

father of the 1st petitioner to sell their properties to real estate

company, for which he has refused and therefore, they have

bore grudge against the petitioners. He further submits that

there are no specific overt acts against the petitioners herein

and sought to quash the proceedings against them in Crime

No.52 of 2022, pending on the file of Chivemla Police Station,

Suryapet District.

6. As stated above, prima facie, there are specific

allegations against both the petitioners herein. The 2nd

respondent and L.W.2 to L.W.4 have specifically mentioned

about the acts of cheating committed by the petitioners herein.

Extent of land, survey numbers etc., promise made by the

petitioners are specifically mentioned. Extent of land, current

motor, execution of gift deed is also specifically mentioned in

the complaint. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be

investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course

of investigation including the allegations made by the 2nd

respondent in the complaint dated 14.03.2022.

7. It is relevant to note that Apex Court in M/s

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra1,

the three judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its

earlier judgments including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal2 laid

certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High

Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C which are as under:

"....

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315

1992 AIR 604

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

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 of law. During or 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;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be

cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.;

8. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner is Deputy

Executive Engineer in Panchaytraj Department and the 2nd

petitioner is MRO. They are not expected to get mutation

proceedings and passbooks in favour of the 2nd respondent and

other owners of land by taking certain land and electric motor

as gift. It is bribe taken by them to do a favour to the 2nd

respondent and others by misusing their official position.

9. In view of the above said principle and considering

the fact that there are specific allegations against the petitioners

herein, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in

Crime No.52 of 2022, pending on the file of Chivemla Police

Station, Suryapet District and the same is liable to be