Telangana High Court

S. Mahendarraju vs Damegunta Achala on 8 August, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4448 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.395 of 2024 of

Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/de

facto complainant lodged a complaint, before the Police,

Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate,

stating that she purchased flat No.202 in Vipra's The Elite,

Kakatiya Hills, Madhapur. It is further stated that the

petitioner occupied the parking place of respondent No.2 by

removing their parking place number and parked his two cars.

The petitioner behaved very rudely, abused her and

threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the said

complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.395 of

2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 427 and

506 of IPC.

SKS,J

3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri A. Samir

Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is a practicing advocate and his brother is the

absolute owner and possessor of flat bearing No.302 of Vipra's

the Elite Apartment, Kakatiya Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

The petitioner and his family members are in peaceful

possession of the said flat. He further submitted that the

brother of the petitioner has given authorization to the

petitioner to take care of the property i.e., flat No.302 and to

maintain it properly by giving necessary maintenance charges,

building expenses etc. He further submitted that the

complaint clearly shows that the matter is purely civil in

nature, but for the egoistic mentality of respondent No.1, she

managed the Police and foisted the present complaint with

vague allegations.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the vendor of respondent No.1 and the brother of the

SKS,J

petitioner entered into Memorandum of Understanding

permitting the brother of the petitioner to change the parking

area way back in the year 2023, wherein it is categorically

agreed that the initial allotment of parking area for flat No.202

was changed to other place, which is convenient to the flat

owner of 202 and that as on today respondent No.1 is having

specific parking area, where no hindrance is caused to

anyone. He further submitted that when the Police tried to

interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner, he

approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.8508 of 2024

against the Police and others, wherein this Court directed the

Police not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the

petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that it is pertinent to note that on earlier occasions,

respondent No.1 lodged complaints on 25.03.2024 and

27.03.2024, but the Police ignored the said complaints.

Therefore, due to the personal grudge of respondent No.1 only,

she lodged a complaint against the petitioner with false

allegations, as such, prayed the Court to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner.

SKS,J

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit opposing the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

stating that respondent No.1 is the absolute owner and

possessor of the flat bearing No.202 of Vipra's the Elite with

built up area of 1460 square feet (including common area) and

car parking area of 80 square feet along with undivided share

of land admeasuring 59 square yards. At the time of purchase,

respondent No.1 was allotted with a car parking area of 80

square feet pertaining to her flat and the same has been

clearly divided among the residents of the building by clearly

mentioning respective flat number at respective parking area.

He further submitted that flat No.202 was purchased from its

original owner along with the car parking and that after

purchase of the said flat, respondent No.2 shifted to that flat,

but to her shocking surprise, she was not allowed to park her

car in the parking area as there were already two cars, which

were parked by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted

that when respondent No.1 asked the petitioner to remove the

cars from her parking area, the petitioner created nuisance

SKS,J

and threatened her saying that he will not remove his cars

from her parking area. Learned cousnel further submitted

that the brother of the petitioner is the owner of flat bearing

No.302 and the petitioner being an advocate is misusing his

position and illegally occupied the parking area of respondent

No.1 and parked his cars in parking area of respondent No.1.

It is further submitted that the petitioner created a false

Memorandum of Understand regarding exchange of the

parking area for the purpose of harassing respondent No.1.

The said fact of entering Memorandum of Understanding was

never disclosed to respondent No.1 at the time of purchasing

the flat. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the

criminal petition.

9. In the light of the submissions made by both the

learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on

record, it appears that the petitioner is using the parking

space of respondent No.1. The main contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner is that the vendor of respondent

No.1 and the brother of the petitioner entered into

Memorandum of Understanding allowing the petitioner to use

the parking area of respondent No.1 way back in the year

SKS,J

2023. It is clearly agreed in the Memorandum of

Understanding that the original parking area allotted to flat

No.202 was changed to a different location, which is

convenient for the owner of flat No.202, without any

hindrance to respondent No.1. After reviewing the aforesaid

contention, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the

same stating that the petitioner created a false unregistered

Memorandum of Understanding, which is between the vendor

of respondent No.1 and the brother of the petitioner, for the

purpose of harassing respondent No.1.

10. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to

see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie

show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.

Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the

avermetns made in the complaint and the statements of the

witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute

any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the

proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.

SKS,J

11. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra

Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14, reads as under:

"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."

12. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, as seen from

the sale deed of respondent No.1, it is not stated anywhere

that she must utilize the alternate parking slot in place of flat

No. 202. Whether the MOU between the brother of the

petitioner and the vendor of respondent No.1 is still in

existence or not will be decided after full-fledged trial only.

Further, there are disputes between the parties, which require

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J

trial, therefore, at this stage, the proceedings against the

petitioner cannot be quashed.

13. In view of the above discussion and as per the law laid