Telangana High Court
Chittireddy Sadhakar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 28 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5333 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 petitioner/accused in C.C.No.116 of
2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Alair. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').
2. The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant gave a complaint on 01.10.2020 at 16.00 hours
stating that his mother had purchased a plot to an extent of 400
Sq yards in Sy.No.246 of Saidapuram Village of Yadagirigutta
Mandal from the petitioner in the year 2003. After purchasing
the land, the petitioner has not shown the boundaries of the
plot. However petitioner is threatening his mother to resale the
said plot to him, to which she has not accepted. The mother of
2nd respondent is a retired teacher and she purchased the said
plot along with 10 to 12 persons and a lay out shown to them by
selling the plot is at fault and the same is not with full
approvals, and the boundaries of plots shown to them at the
time of purchase are totally disposed and they are unable to
identify their plots. Further petitioner is threatening with dire
consequences and insisting his mother to resale the above plot
to him, when they asked the petitioner to show their plot and its
boundaries. As such, requested the police to register the case
against the petitioner.
3. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.
4. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none
appeared on his behalf.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner is no way related to the offence under Section 420 of
I.P.C. The 2nd respondent bore grudge and foisted a false
complaint against the petitioner. The alleged transactions are
civil in nature. As such, police have no role to play in such
circumstances. The mother of 2nd respondent purchased the
plot in Sy.No.246 to an extent of 400 Sq yards in the year 2003,
and after twenty years, now the 2nd respondent is asking the
petitioner to show the boundaries. In the year 2003 there is no
conversion of lay out in Gram Panchayat areas. There are no
averments to constitute the offences under Section 420 or 506
of I.P.C., and petitioner never threatened the 2nd respondent. As
such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the
above C.C., is abuse of process of law and hence, prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that not only the 2nd respondent there
are other victims who suffered in the hands of petitioner.
Petitioner sold the property under the guise of lay out which is
not in existence and he has also not shown the boundaries to
other victims who purchased the property under the alleged lay
out. Therefore, the said issue requires trial and prayed the
Court to dismiss this petition.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the
counsel and the material placed on record, though the petitioner
contended that there is no offence under Section 420 of I.P.C, he
is not disputing that he sold property to the 2nd respondent and
other witnesses in this case. The only contention of the
petitioner is that though the mother of 2nd respondent
purchased the plot in the year 2003, now, he is requesting to
show its boundaries. The further allegation is that petitioner is
threatening and insisting the mother of 2nd respondent to re-
sale the property. Not only the mother of 2nd respondent, but
the statements of Lws.2 to 4 also show that they are also victims
in the hands of petitioner. The said issues require trial. As
such, it cannot be said that the averments do not constitute the
offences alleged against the petitioner and the proceedings
against the petitioner in C.C.No.116 of 2021 cannot be quashed.
8. However, 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 offences as
alleged by the prosecution. Further, while dealing with the
petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take
into consideration the averments made in the complaint and the
statements of 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. The power to quash shall not, however, be used to
stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be
used sparingly and with abundant caution.
9. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, in
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
paragraph No.14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 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."
10. In view of the above discussion and as per 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 petitioner and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date : 28.08.2024
Rds
