Telangana High Court
Smt. Shahnaz Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7945 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, and 5 to 10
in C.C.No.10372 of 2021, on the file of the learned XVII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 387, 451, 504 and 506
read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Golconda Police
Station, Hyderabad District against the petitioners and other
accused stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the
House bearing No.9-8-457/3, admeasuring 156.00 square yards,
situated at Mohammed Nagar, Saleh Nagar, Golconda Fort,
Hyderabad. The Court below vide orders passed in E.P.No.259 of
2014 and O.S.No.673 of 2012 transferred the said property in his
favour and the Municipal Tax, Electricity and Water Bills are in his
name. By knowing all the said facts, the petitioners and other
accused have forcibly entered into his property, grabbed the
property, not vacating the said premises and threatened him with
SKS,J
dire consequences by using filthy language along with gunda
elements. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.356 of 2020 and after completion of investigation,
they filed charge sheet before the XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon
respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view
of the orders passed in E.P.No.259 of 2014, the property was
already delivered to respondent No.2 and therefore, the question of
vacating the property does not arise. Learned counsel further
submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature, there are no
reasons to register the criminal case and there are no overt acts of
the petitioners. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that since there are serious allegations against the
petitioners, quashing of proceedings at this stage do not arise. As
such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
SKS,J
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
learned counsel and having gone through the material available on
record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the
Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima
facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of
appeal or revision. This Court has, in several
judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used
sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High
Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
so when the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material."
8. As seen from the record, there are disputes between the
petitioners and respondent No.2. The prime allegation against the
petitioners are that they forcibly entered into the subject property,
grabbed the same, and threatened respondent No.2 with dire
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
consequences using filthy language along with gunda elements and
demanded amount in lakhs. Whether the subject property was
delivered to respondent No.2 or whether the petitioners are in
possession of the said property can be decided after full-fledged
trial only. At this stage, it cannot be said that there are no
allegations against the petitioners.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition
to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 08.04.2024
SAI
