Telangana High Court
Palla Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1257 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioners, who is arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in FIR, seeking
to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6502 of 2022
on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of IPC
and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.2022, at
about 17:00 hours, the petitioners illegally trespassed into land
in Survey No.134 and dug the holes with the help of JCB bearing
No. TS 08 FZ 7880. Immediately, respondent No. 2 informed
them that this land belongs to Jangamkunta, as such, asked
them to stop their work. Hence, a case was registered vide
Crime No. 863 of 2022 and charge sheet was filed vide
C.C.No.6502 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil
Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy
District at Kukatpally. It is stated that petitioner No.1 filed
W.P.No.29725 of 2022 seeking a Writ of Mandamus, wherein this
SKS,J
Court granted interim direction to Tahsildar, Serilingampally, in
respect of property bearing No.1-3/4/51/A, Plot No.51/1A,
admeasuring 223.3 square yards or equivalent to 186.67 square
meters in Survey No. 112/3 situated at Kondapur village,
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Heard Sri Mirza Saifulla Baig, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioner No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the
property bearing H.No.1-3/4/51/A, plot No.51/1A, admeasuring
223.3 square yards in Survey No.112/3, situated at Kondapur
village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having
purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing No.1621
of 1991 dated 02.03.1991. He further submitted that it is falsely
alleged that the petitioner No.1 making construction over the
land in Survey No.134, whereas the plot of petitioner No.1 comes
under Survey No.112/3 as per the revenue records. He also
submitted that instead of following the specific directions of this
Court in W.P.No.29725 of 2022, respondent No.2 filed a false
complaint. Hence, he prayed to allow the Criminal Petition by
quashing the proceedings against them.
SKS,J
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioners
tried to trespass into the said property and the case needs to go
through trial for the alleged offences against the petitioners.
Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submission by both the counsel, this
Court has perused the record and found that as per the
complaint averments of respondent No.2, under the guise of
direction of this Court in W.P.No.29725 of 2022, these
petitioners are trying to encroach the government land in Survey
No.134. It is pertinent to note that as per the revenue records,
both the Survey Numbers i.e., Survey Nos.134 and 112/3 are
different. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
since allegations levelled against the petitioners require a
detailed trial in order to elicit true facts of the case.
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:
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
"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. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kori (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.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As the
Calendar Case is of the year 2022, the trial Court is directed to
dispose of the Calendar Case as expeditiously as possible duly
affording opportunity to the parties.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 24.04.2024
gms
