Telangana High Court

Sri Cheguri Sathyanarayana, Hyd ... vs State Of Ap. Rep Pp And Anr., on 13 September, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                      CRL.P.13786 OF 2013
ORDER:

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

to quash the proceedings the petitioners-A-1 to A-4 in Cr.No.86 of

2013 of Koheda Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 IPC.

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

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State.

None appears for the second respondent-complainant. Perused the

material on record.

3. The second respondent presented a complaint to the police

alleging that he owns a plot admeasuring 247 sq. yards which is

part of Sy.No.523, situated at Koheda Village and Mandal,

Karimnagar district. While so, in the midnight of 16.06.2013, the

petitioners-A-1 to A-4 have illegally trespassed into his plot and

demolished the compound wall. The same was informed to him

over phone by Cheguri Raju and Srinivas. He further stated

that there is a status quo order in respect of the said property.

Based on the above complaint, the Police, Koheda registered a

case in Cr.No.86 of 2013 against the petitioners-A-1 to A-4 for the

offences stated above and took up investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A-1 to A-4 submits

that the neither the second respondent nor his vendors

are owners of the property and false sale deeds dated 18.07.2011

were created by themselves. The second respondent is none

other than son of younger brother of petitioner-A-4. Learned

counsel further submits that the second respondent filed

O.S.No.106 of 2011 in respect of the property in question for

perpetual injunction and the court has not granted interim

injunction. The petitioners filed O.S.No.34 of 2013 for

cancellation of the sale deeds before the Junior Civil Judge,

Husnabad, Karimnagar District. Both the suits are pending for

consideration. Learned counsel further submits that in view of

the civil litigation between the parties, a false case had been foisted

by the second respondent one month after the alleged incident.

The allegations in the complaint prima facie do not constitute any

of the offences alleged and there is no material to proceed against

the petitioners. He, therefore, prays to quash the proceedings the

petitioners-A-1 to A-4.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that

the entire allegations in the complaint prima facie do constitute

commission of the offences alleged and the trial court may be

permitted to proceed with the trial and the truth or otherwise of the

allegations in the complaint would come to light only after trial.

6. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint/FIR would

reveal that on 16.06.2003, the petitioners-A-1 to A-4 are alleged to

have demolished the compound wall constructed around the plot

of the second respondent admeasuring 247 sq.yards (part of

Sy.No.523), and the second respondent obtained status quo order

in respect of the said property. The petitioners have filed certain

documents and the same discloses that the second respondent filed

a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the property in question

basing on the sale deeds. According to the petitioners, the said sale

deeds are false and created between themselves and they have also

filed a suit for cancellation of the same being O.S.No.34 of 2013.

The petitioners claim that the second respondent has no manner of

right over the land of 250 sq. yards and it belongs to the petitioners

and the entire property is under their exclusive possession and

enjoyment. The entire house is situated over an extent of 550 sq.

yards. According to the petitioners, there is also a residential house

bearing Gram Panchayat No.2-45. The second respondent is

alleged to have created a false sale deed in the month of July, 2011

and filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of 550 sq.yards

of land in O.S.No.106 of 2011 and in the said suit, an application

was filed for temporary injunction and according to the petitioners,

the learned Junior Civil Judge has refused to grant temporary

injunction. However, based on the allegations in the plaint, the

second respondent mentioned that he had obtained status quo order

in the said suit, but he has not filed the details of the suit and the

orders passed by the said court.

7. Admittedly, the property of 247 sq. yards of plot in

Sy.No.523 at Koheda Village is in dispute. Since both the parities

are claiming that there is a residential house along with the open

plot and the entire house is situated in an area of 550 sq. yards and

so also the title and possession of the property is in dispute before

the courts, the entire allegation appears to be civil in nature.

The allegations in the complaint prima facie do not make out

any of the ingredients of the offences alleged and the material on

record placed by the petitioners prima facie show that there is civil

litigation between the parties in respect of the property in question.

When the property in question is in exclusive possession of the

petitioners prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under

criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC are not attracted.

8. 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 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

(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".

9. 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".

10. Keeping in view the above principles, coming to the case on

hand, the allegations the complaint prima facie do not clearly

constitute commission of cognizable offences and the entire

allegations, having regard to the fact that suits are pending between

the parties, appears to be civil in nature. The allegations in the

complaint/FIR squarely fall under one of the categories of

BHAJAN LAL's case (supra). Therefore, it is a fit case to invoke

the inherent powers of this under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash

the proceedings against the petitioners-A-1 to A-4.

11. The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed The

proceedings against the against the petitioners-A-1 to A-4 in

Cr.No.86 of 2013 of Koheda Police Station, Karimnagar District,