M.Krishna Kishore Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, Re By P.P ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5016 Tel

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8692 OF 2017

ORDER:

1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.95 of

2017 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar, in which the petitioner is the sole accused.

2. A private complaint was filed by the defacto complainant/2nd

respondent in the court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate at

Rajendranagar stating that the complainant's father died on

14.02.2000 and during his life time, he did not execute any sale

deed, will deed, gift deed, mortgage deed or leased the property to

third parties. Said property is in Sy.No.389/AA admeasuring

Acs.2.31 guntas situated at Machirevula village, Rajendranagar

Mandal, R.R.District. On 28.03.2016, the petitioner/accused

entered into the property of the complainant with fraudulent

intention and also had created fabricated documents to grab the

property. When the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant

questioned, the petitioner used filthy language and created a scene

at the land. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner

has no right over the said property and the petitioner is making all

possible efforts to disturb the complainant/2nd respondent. The

said private complaint was referred to police for the purpose of

investigation. The police filed charge sheet alleging commission of

offence under Sections 420, 447, 406, 506 and 120-B of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even

accepting the allegations made in the charge sheet and the

statement of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, no offence is

made out against the petitioner. In fact, the land was purchased

by the petitioner on 28.08.2002 and thereafter sold the said land

on 07.09.2007 in favour of one Chebrolu Narendernath. For the

said reason, the question of the petitioner claiming the land on

28.03.2016 and trespassing into the said land does not arise.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randheer Singh v. State

of U.P1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to constitute

an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there should have been

dishonest inducement and the person so deceived should have

delivered any property. Further, when the dispute is purely civil in

nature and deliberately given a colour of criminal offence, in such a

situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the

2021 SCC OnLine SC 942

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to prevent the abuse of

process of the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd respondent

submits that though the offence under Section 406 and 420 of IPC

are not made out on the face of the statement of the 2nd

respondent, however, there is criminal trespass and intimidation,

which is apparent from the charge sheet and also the statement of

complainant. For the said reason, the proceedings cannot be

quashed.

6. The purchase of the land by the petitioner on 28.08.2002 and

selling the said land on 07.09.2007 is not disputed. It is neither the

case of police nor the defacto complainant that the documents are

in any way fabricated. The police have investigated the case and

except stating that the petitioner with the help of fabricated and

created documents, tried to grab the property, however, it is not

stated the said sale deeds which are dated 28.08.2002 and

07.09.2007 are fabricated documents.

7. Admittedly, the property was purchased by the petitioner and

the vendor, who had sold the property to the petitioner, is not made

as an accused. No documents are filed by the police or the

complainant to substantiate that the defacto complainant/2nd

respondent has any right over the said property which is Ac.2.31

guntas, situated at Manchirevula village, Rajendranagar,

R.R.District. When the complainant himself has failed to produce

any documents to substantiate his right over the said property, the

question of either trespass or criminal intimidation by the

petitioner does not arise. In the complaint, the date of offence is

mentioned as 28.03.2016, however, the private complaint is made

before the court on 26.05.2016 without assigning any reasons as to

why there is a delay of nearly two months in lodging the said

complaint.

8. As already observed, there is no inducement by this petitioner

pursuant to which any property is parted by the defacto

complainant, for which reason, Section 420 of IPC is not attracted.

Further, there is no entrustment of any property, which has been

misappropriated to attract an offence under Section 406 of IPC. In

the absence of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the

police filing any record to show that the 2nd respondent was the

owner of the land in question, the question of the petitioner

trespassing and intimidating the defacto complainant/2nd

respondent does not arise.

9. In the said circumstances, no case is made out for any of the

offences alleged, for which reason, the proceedings in CC No.95 of

2017 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar are hereby quashed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.10.2022 Kvs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8692 of 2017

Dt.11.10.2022

kvs