P.Guru Murthy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3871 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI


               CRIMINAL PETITION No.5581 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.580 of 2022 on the

file of PS, Meerpet.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the accused approached the

respondent No.2 - complainant and demanded her to sell the house property to

them at cheaper rate and when the complainant denied to sell the said house

property, the accused developed grudge against the complainant and hatched out

a plan to grab the house of the complainant by illegal means. On 11.03.2022,

the accused tried to occupy the house of the complainant and she resisted the

attempts of the accused. On 12.03.2022, the accused A1 and A2 came to the

house property of the complainant along with 10 to 15 persons, created panic,

scolded the complainant in filthy language by using un-parliamentary language,

pelted stones on the complainant and threatened the complainant with dire

consequences. The complainant approached the Police, but as no action was

initiated by them, filed a private complaint which was referred to the Police and

registered as Crime No.580 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 384, 389,

Dr.GRR, J crlp_5581_2022

427, 447, 452, 504, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3,

10(i)(3) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities (for short "POA") Act.

3. Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri S.Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 -

State and Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 -

complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was

innocent of the above allegations. He had nothing to do with the said

allegations made against him. The petitioner lodged a complaint against the

respondent No.2 - complainant on 03.03.2022 and the present complaint was

lodged as a counter blast to the said complaint lodged by him on 17.05.2022.

The respondent No.2 was made as a party to the Execution proceedings in

E.P.No.22 of 2019 in O.S.No.1610 of 2003. She was added as JDR.No.4. The

petitioner purchased the property five years prior to the respondent No.2 -

complainant and an injunction order was in their favour. The respondent No.2

was trying to convert a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, which was an abuse

of process of law. The complainant having suffered a decree in O.S.No.1610 of

2003 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar and after filing Execution Proceedings against the Judgment Debtor

(for short "JDR") wherein the complainant was also added as a party JDR in the

Dr.GRR, J crlp_5581_2022

said EP tried to interfere with the property of the petitioners. The petitioners

resisted the complainant. She lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the

Police registered the same without even making a preliminary enquiry into the

matter and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana and Others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others 1 wherein it was held that

a criminal proceeding which was manifestly attempted with a malafide intention

or instituted with a malicious intention for wrecking vengeance against the

accused was not maintainable.

5. He further submitted that the complainant was in the habit of lodging

false complaints against the accused. She also lodged a complaint, which was

registered as Case No.29-ACP-VPRM/RCKD/2018-19, dated 07.09.2019,

which was pending adjudication. She was misusing the SC & ST (POA) Act,

2015 and making the said Act as a tool to harass the petitioner and prayed to

quash the proceedings against the petitioner - A1 in Crime No.580 of 2022 on

the file of PS, Meerpet.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - complainant contended

that the petitioner and others being realtors doing real estate business, used to

purchase the plots, flats, houses and lands at cheap rates. They approached the

respondent No.2 and demanded to sell her house to them. When the respondent

No.2 denied the same, they developed grudge against the respondent No.2 and

AIR 1992 SC 604

Dr.GRR, J crlp_5581_2022

hatched a plan to grab her house and accordingly trespassed into her house,

abused her in the name of caste and created a panic situation. The suit in

O.S.No.1610 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District was not applicable to the respondent No.2, as the respondent

No.2 was not a party to the said proceedings. The EP was also not applicable

against respondent No.2 as she was not a party to the said suit. As per the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Private

Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2, the criminal proceedings could

not be quashed at the stage of FIR. Without conducting the investigation, the

true facts would not be revealed. The petitioner was involved in a number of

cases in Crime No.22 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 420, 417, 468,

471, 504 and 506 of IPC on the file of PS Meerpet and was also accused in

Crime No.38 of 2021 of PS Saroornagar. Pendency of a civil suit was not a

ground to quash the criminal case against the petitioner and prayed to dismiss

the petition.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also supported the contentions of

the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - complainant and contended that

the petition could not be quashed at this stage.

8. Perused the record.

(2021) SCC online SC 315

Dr.GRR, J crlp_5581_2022

9. As seen from the record, both the petitioner - A1 and the respondent No.2

- complainant were alleging that they were the absolute owners and possessors

in respect of Plot No.20 admeasuring 267 square yards in Survey No.4 situated

at Dawood Khan Guda Village, Balapur Revenue Mandal (Old Saroornagar),

Ranga Reddy District under Badangpet Nagara Panchayat. The petitioner was

alleging that he purchased the said property from his vendors Smt.F.K.Uma Bai

and others, who were legal heirs of late Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna through

registered sale agreement cum General Power of Attorney with possession vide

document No.16156 of 2012 dated 14.12.2012 in the office of the Sub-

Registrar, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District for a valuable sale consideration.

10. As per petitioner No.1, one R.Ail Reddy, S/o.Muthyam Reddy was the

GPA holder of vendor Rallagudem Ram Reddy, S/o.Chenna Reddy and after the

purchaser Falaharam Kasaiah Krishna died intestate on 08.05.2009, his widow

and children i.e. the vendors of the petitioner had succeeded to the estate and

they in turn sold the property to them under a valid document and they were in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. When the said GPA holder

R.Ail Reddy tried to interfere with the possession of Falaharam Kasaiah

Krishna, the latter instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.1610 of 2003 on the file of

the Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District, Saroornagar

seeking for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed as prayed for in

the year 2008 and the same was still in force. Having failed in the legal battle,

Dr.GRR, J crlp_5581_2022

R.Ail Reddy taking advantage of the GPA in his favour, alienated the self-same

property to one Smt.Kalavathi and she in turn sold to Rafiq Rahman, who in

collusion with R.Ail Reddy sold to Pochamma and who in turn sold to Karuna

and subsequently the said Karuna sold to Smt.R.Sujatha (the respondent No.2

herein) and her husband M.Shankar Naik, got executed the sale deed registered

as document No.13321 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017 (chain link transactions).

11. As per the contention of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 was trying to

stake claim in and over the property and was adopting illegal methods including

threatening and coercing him and the co-owner A.Mahesh Goud. It was further

contended that on 12.01.2018 at 10:00 AM, the respondent No.2 trespassed into

their property and threatened the petitioners, due to which they lodged a report

before SHO, Meerpet, but the same was closed by the Police as civil in nature.

But the Police registered a case vide Crime No.29 of 2019 for the offences

under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of IPC on the report given by the respondent

No.2 under the influence of Assistant Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar.

12. The petitioner was contending that they were in possession of the

property for more than two decades and that they were also protected by an

order of injunction granted by a competent civil court in the year 2003, which

was still in operation. Their contention was that they constructed two rooms in

the property and also engaged a watchman who was residing in the said

Dr.GRR, J crlp_5581_2022

property. The respondent No.2 - complainant was making an attempt to throw

out the said watchman and to occupy the said property under the guise of threat

of an action under SC-ST Act.

13. As seen from the complaint, the complainant purchased the said property

from A.Karuna vide registered sale deed document No.13321 of 2017 on

13.11.2017 and she was in possession of the said property since then and she

constructed a house vide Door No.29-1-20, Badangpet, RMR Colony by

obtaining permission from the concerned Municipal Authorities and her name

was incorporated in the municipal records.

14. Thus, the dispute appears to be civil in nature. From the material on

record, it appears that a civil dispute is converted into a criminal dispute and the

provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are also

incorporated. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the complainant filed O.S.No.635 of 2022 on the file of the VI Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar seeking perpetual

injunction against the petitioners. But, she failed to state about the allegations

made in the criminal complaint in the said suit. As the initiation of the criminal

proceedings for the offences under Section SC & ST (POA) Act is nothing but

an abuse of process of law and the respondent No.2 - complainant had

Dr.GRR, J crlp_5581_2022

converted a civil dispute into criminal proceedings, the same deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings

against the petitioner - Accused No.1 in Crime No.580 of 2022 on the file of the

PS, Meerpet.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________ DR.G. RADHA RANI, J

Date: 14th November, 2023 Nsk.