Telangana High Court
Kopparthi Rajam vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10885 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 to 4, 6 to
9 and 11 to 13 in Crl.M.P.No.868 of 2016 in C.C.No.353 of 2016
on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Mancherial, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 427, 447, 323, 290 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, CCC Naspur
Police Station, Adilabad District against the petitioners and
other stating that she purchased the land, admeasuring Ac.1-19
guntas, in Survey No.46 situated at Naspur Shivar, from the
original owner and pattedar under registered sale deed in the
year 2006 in the name of her husband and since then they have
been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. It
is stated that about three years prior to filing of the complaint
when petitioner No.10/accused No.12, came to respondent No.2
SKS,J
and her husband along with his men and asked to sell the said
land to him. Respondent No.2 refused the same. Later,
petitioner No.10 along with some unsocial elements has
threatened respondent No.2 and her husband to grab the said
land. Thereafter, the husband of respondent No.2 filed a civil
suit vide O.S.No.200 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal
Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial for permanent injunction and
the same was decreed in his favour. To protect the said land
from encroachers and land grabbers, respondent No.2 and her
husband dumped sand and cement bricks in their land and
fixed cement poles along with fencing wire around their land. It
is further stated that on 16.09.2015, when respondent No.2 and
her husband went to see their land, the petitioners abused them
in filthy language and threatened them to kill and took away the
iron sheets and iron pipes and caused loss of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in
Crime No.138 of 2015 and after completion of investigation, final
report was submitted as "false" and they filed charge sheet
before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mancherial.
3. Heard Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh,
SKS,J
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1-State and Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitionr Nos.10 and 11/accused Nos.12 and 13 denied the title
and possession of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 did not
get valid title under the so-called registered sale deed on which
she is claiming the scheduled property as his vendor's vendor
has no right or title over it. He further submitted that the entire
property of his vendor's vendor was already sold away long back
and basing upon nominal revenue entries, respondent No.2
created a false sale deed in collusion with her vendor. More
particularly, there is no such land existing within the schedule
property as alleged by respondent No.2. Without considering
the same, the trial Court decreed O.S.No.200 of 2013, filed by
the husband of respondent No.2 in their favour. Aggrieved by
the same, petitioner Nos.10 and 11/accused Nos.12 and 13 filed
Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.54 of 2017 and the same was allowed
confirming the possession of petitioner Nos.10 and 11/accused
Nos.12 and 13. It is also submitted that by creating false
documents, respondent No.2 foisted the false case against the
SKS,J
petitioners. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there are serious allegations against the
petitioners, which are to be tried by the trial Court in trial.
Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that it is a false case.
As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
parties and having gone through the material available on
record, it appears that the petitioners entered into the property
of respondent No.2 and took away the material. As seen from
the record, there are civil disputes between the parties and the
suit was also filed by the husband of respondent No.2 and the
same was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners Nos.10 and 11 filed the appeal suit and the same was
decreed in their favour. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
petitioners entered into the property of respondent No.2. It is
further submitted that the petitioners abused respondent No.2
and her husband in filthy language and threatened them to kill
and took away the iron sheets and iron pipes and caused loss of
Rs.1,00,000/-. Initially, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint
and Police registered the case vide Crime No.138 of 2015 and
SKS,J
the same closed stating that the case was referred as 'false' and
wherein it is mentioned that the iron sheets are not taken by the
petitioners. The disputes between the parties appear to be civil
in nature and civil suit is already filed against the judgment
preferred appeal and it is also decided by the Court.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of
Telangana and another 1, wherein in paragraph No.17 it is
held as follows:
"17. While exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the High Court has to
be conscious that this power is to be exercised
sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention
of abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint
discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon
the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether
the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are
present or not, has to be judged by the High
Court. A complaint disclosing civil transaction
may also have a criminal texture. But the High
Court must see whether the dispute which is in
substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a
criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil
remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has
happened in the case on hand, the High Court
2023 (1) ALT (CRL.) (SC) 1 (DB)
SKS,J
should have quashed the criminal proceeding to
prevent abuse of process of Court."
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R. Nagender Yadav (Supra), the contents in the complaint do
not constitute any offence punishable under Sections 427, 447
and 290 of IPC against the petitioners. Therefore, the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC are
to be tried by the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part and
the proceedings against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 290 of the IPC are
hereby quashed while permitting the prosecution to proceed
further against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 26.04.2024
SAI
