Telangana High Court

K.Satyanarayana 3 Others vs The State Of A.P. Another on 7 September, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    CRL.P.No.1603 OF 2013
ORDER:

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

seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A-1 to

A- in C.C.No.62 of 2013, on the file of the VI Special Magistrate at

Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-A-1 to A-4 and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-

State. Perused the material on record.

3. The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar filed a complaint before Police,

Malakpet alleging that all the accused broke open the seal and

trespassed into the seized premises i.e., ceiling surplus land in

Sy.Nos.33 & 34, correlating to TS No.1, Ward 167 & Block-A of

Teegalguda Village, which has been in possession of the

Government. Based on the said complaint, police registered a case

in Cr.No.291 of 2012 against A-1 to A-4 for the offences

punishable under Sections 427 and 447 IPC and took up

investigation and after completion of same, filed charge sheet

against petitioners-A-1 to A-4 for the above said offences in

C.C.No.913 of 2012, on the file the VII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and later, it was transferred to

the court of VI Special Magistrate at Erramanzil, Hyderabad and

re-numbered as C.C.No.62 of 2013.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the first

petitioner's son and wife are the absolute owners of the alleged

property in an extent of 273.78 sq. yards each having purchased the

same from Mr.Basham Sriramulu and four others through

registered GPA vide document bearing No.986 of 1988 dated

12.12.1988 coupled with agreement of sale in Sy.No.33

admeasuring Acs.1-24 Gts., of Teegalguda Village, Charminar

Mandal. Learned counsel further submits that the GPA holder, in

turn, made total 11 plots over the said land and sold the same to the

prospective purchasers wherein petitioners 1 and 2 purchased plot

Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Sy.No.33, altogether admeasuring 593 sq. yards.

Petitioner No.1 and his family are in possession of the property and

the question of their trespassing into their own property does not

arise. He prays to quash the proceedings against the proceedings

against petitioners-A-1 to A-4.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends

that the allegations in the FIR/complaint and charge sheet would

prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences alleged and

there are no merits in the petition prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint/FIR and charge

sheet and the material on record disclose that A-1 to A-4 are

alleged to have broke open the seal and trespassed into the seized

premises i.e., ceiling surplus land in Sy.Nos.33 & 34, correlating to

TS No.1, Ward 167 & Block-A of Teegalguda Village, which has

been in possession of the Government. The Tahsildar, Saidabad

Mandal lodged a complaint with police and on the basis of the

same, police registered a case and took up investigation.

7. It the case of petitioners 1 and 2 that they are alleged to

purchased plot Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Sy.No.33 from the GPA holder of

Mr.Basham Sriramulu, who is owner of Acs.1-24 Gts., of land of

Teegalguda Village, which was made into 11 plots. The petitioners

also state that there was one old house bearing No.16-11-16/A/2 to

4 in the said property. Petitioner No.1 constructed a house in the

year 1992 by obtaining electricity and water connection to the

said house. It is also the case of the petitioners that the

Government acquired part of the plot of petitioner No.1 for the

purpose of road widening. Apart from this, first petitioner's wife

and son filed W.P.No.35301 of 2012 wherein this court by order

dated 20.11.2012 passed the following order:

"Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, would submit that the petitioners had raised illegal structures over surplus lands vested in the government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and had rented the said structures to others. She would further submit that an L.G.C has already been filed against the petitioners and, respondents are not interfering with the petitioners' possession over the structures in question nor are they seeking to demolish them; and, since the petitioners had also challenged the ULC proceedings dated 08.03.2006, respondents would file a counter affidavit".

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also filed material papers

pertaining to the said writ petition and a perusal of the same would

reveal that the petitioners are in possession of the said property

having acquired rights over the property. It can, thus, be safely

accepted that the petitioners are in possession of the property.

However, they may not be having proper title to the property, but

the documents filed by them would substantiate their contention

regarding their possession over the disputed property.

9. The offence of criminal trespass in Section 441 IPC

pre-supposes intention to commit the offence or to intimidate or

annoy any person in possession of such property. In the instant

case, the documents filed by the petitioners, prima facie, show that

there are in constructive possession of the disputed property.

However, the complainant-Tahsildar disputes that the petitioners

are not the rightful owners of the disputed land which is ceiling

surplus and the same is in possession of the Government.

10. In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL1, the

Hon'ble Apex Court laid the following guidelines while exercising

the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and gave the following

categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such power

could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice, as under:

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e)   where      the     allegations         made      in    the    FIR       or
      complaint         are      so         absurd       and       inherently
      improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where

the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulteriormotive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".

11. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held at

paragraph 103 as under:

"We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice".

12. Keeping in view the principles relating to exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., coming to the case on hand,

the allegations in the FIR/complaint and charge sheet do

not constitute any of the ingredients of the offences alleged.

The documents filed by the petitioners prima facie establish that

they are in possession of the property having purchased the same

under a registered document and their possession over the disputed

land is manifest from the said documents. When the possession of

the petitioners is a disputed question of fact, the offence of criminal

trespass is not made out and as stated above, the disputable title

and possession of the property have to be decided by a civil court.

The entire dispute appears to be civil in nature. Therefore,