Telangana High Court
Ravirala Vasudev And 4 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 4 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1460 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/accused Nos.1 to 5, to quash the proceedings against
them in S.C.No.213 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Judge
for SC/ST Offences at Nalgonda, for the offences punishable
under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(g) of SC/STs (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.02.2021,
accused No.1 along with his henchmen illegally trespassed into
the land of respondent No.2 and planted fencing by removing
fifty orange trees. It is stated that on 27.06.2022 also, accused
persons trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and
removed hundred orange trees with the help of JCB. Hence, a
case was registered in Crime No. 43 of 2022 before the
Gurrampode Police and after completion of investigation, a
charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.213 of 2022 on the file of
Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Offences at Nalgonda.
SKS,J
3. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for
the Petitioners as well as Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
respondent No.2 filed suit vide O.S.No.165 of 2018 before the
Civil Court. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed the
complaint with false allegation only for monitory gains in a land
dispute. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal
Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners stating that the petitioners used to interfere with the
possession of the land of respondent No.2 by damaging his
orange crop. As such, the alleged offences against the petitioners
require trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal
Petition.
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
SKS,J
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.
SurendraKori 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, it is stated that there are civil
disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 with
regard to the boundaries in Survey Nos.1062, 1064 situated at
Koppole village of Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is
pertinent to note that the petitioners trespassed to the land of
respondent No.2 by damaging the orange crop on 09.02.2021
and 27.06.2022 during the pendency of civil suit vide
O.S.No.165 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at
Nalgonda. Mere pendency of the suit is not a ground to quash
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
the proceedings when the allegations are not only about the
trespass but also about the damage of the crop. Hence,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the
allegations against the petitioners requires trial to elicit the
truth, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations
levelled against the petitioners cannot be quashed.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SurendraKori (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: 04 .07.2024
gms
