Telangana High Court

Dhanavath Divya vs The Sate Of Telangana on 12 September, 2023

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.4938 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and perused

the record.

2. In spite of service of notice and in spite of granting sufficient

opportunities, none appeared for respondent No.2.

3. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by

the petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 seeking to quash in

F.I.R.No.399 of 2023 on the file of the Station House Officer,

Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.03.2023,

respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging

that in the year 2015, he had purchased a plot bearing No.106 in

Survey No.394, Thorrur Village, under a registered sale deed vide

document No.8454/15 and since then, he is in peaceful possession

of the property. It is further alleged that the petitioners tried to

encroach the said property by creating false documents and abused

him in filthy language and threatened to register a case under the

provisions of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, respondent No.2 was

constrained to file a suit vide O.S.No.365 of 2019 and the Court

below has passed an order of status quo in I.A.No.1016 of 2019 in

O.S.No.365 of 2019. Despite the same, the petitioners have

constructed a compound wall and tried to sell the plot to third

parties. Hence, he requested to take action against the petitioners.

Basing on the said complaint, the police, Hayathnagar Police Station

registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable

under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

respondent No.2 alleged that he purchased the subject plot under

registered sale deed dated 09.12.2015 and that petitioner No.1 has

purchased the subject plot through a registered sale deed bearing

document No.1286 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010. It is further contended

that petitioner No.1 had regularized the subject plot under Layout

Regularisation Scheme vide proceedings No.HMDAL187274/LRS/

GTK/Plg/HMDA/2015-16 dated 08.05.2017. The learned counsel

further contended that on 22.02.2023, when respondent No.2 tried to

encroach upon the petitioners' property, the petitioners came to

know about the suit filed by respondent No.2 against petitioner

No.1 vide O.S.No.365 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar, seeking declaration of

title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction and that the

petitioner No.1 has filed a written statement and the same is

pending consideration and that in spite of the matter being sub

judice before the competent civil Court, the present criminal

complaint was filed with false and baseless allegations.

6. A perusal of the record discloses that respondent No.2 filed a

suit against petitioner No.1 and the trial Court has granted status

quo orders in the Interlocutory Application filed in the said suit.

7. Admittedly, the disputes between the petitioners and

respondent No.2 are civil in nature, and therefore, the police cannot

interfere with same.

8. The Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that

wherever there is a civil dispute, the question of filing criminal cases

by the parties for civil disputes is nothing but abuse of the process

of law.

9. In G. Sagar Sure v. State of U.P 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held as under:

8) "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise is a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others 2, the

Supreme Court held that in the exercise of the wholesome power

under Section 482 of the Code, High Court is entitled to quash a

proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the

proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the

Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to

be quashed.

2000 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 707

AIR (1977) SC 1489 = [1977] 3 SCR 113

11. In Commissioner of Police v. Devender Anand 3, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

"Having head the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and considering the material on record, we are of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 - original complainant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law for settling a civil dispute."

12. In view of the above judgments and since the disputes

between the petitioners and respondent No.2 are prima facie civil in

nature, this Court is of the considered view that the question of

trespass cannot be decided by the police during the course of

investigation without knowing as to who is the owner and

possessor of the subject plot.

13. At this juncture, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

basing on written instructions submitted by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Hayathnagar Police Station, has stated that in the present

case, investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed before

the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, on

28.08.2023, and C.C. Number is awaited, and therefore, the matter

has become infructuous.

2019 (3) MWN (Cr.) 98 (SC)

14. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain

and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

FIR even when a charge sheet is filed by the police during the

pendency of such petition and relied upon the three-Judge Bench of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya

Pradesh 4, wherein it was held as under:

"This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the very outset that the contention that the appellants' quash petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto was submitted before the Court and taken on file, needs mention only to be rejected. It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition [See Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and others {(2011) 7 SCC 59}]. This principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]. This issue, therefore, needs no further elucidation on our part."

15. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the aforestated judgment, this Court is of the view that the High

Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and

quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during

the pendency of the petition.

Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015, dated 31.08.2023

16. Therefore, F.I.R.No.399 of 2023 registered on the file of the

Hayathnagar Police Station, against the petitioners for the offences

under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and

all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby

quashed.

17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.