Telangana High Court
G. Vemana Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3370 OF 2024
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 No.3 in FIR.No.221 of
2023 dated 27.10.2023 before the Suraram Police Station,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the
IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a written complaint stating that when
she went to regular field inspection in survey Nos.2 and 3, FTL
land, Krishna Nagar, Gajularamaram Village, she noticed that
persons by name Yadagiri, Mazhar, Vemana
Reddy/petitioner/accused No.3 trespassed to FTL land and have
illegally disturbed the cheruvu by constructing rooms, filling the
kotha cheruvu.
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered
FIR.No.221 of 2023 dated 27.10.2023 arraying the petitioner as
accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427
read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal
petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri K.Rajashekhar, learned counsel for petitioner,
and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing
for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of
respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the
period of the alleged incident, the petitioner was not even present
in India and the same can be proved by the air tickets which
shows the departure of petitioner to America was schedule on
10.07.2023 and the arrival to India was scheduled on 03.12.2023.
He contended that in the absence of petitioner, the respondent
No.2 has raised false accusations and allegations against the
petitioner with malicious intentions. He asserted that the Section
447 which pertains to criminal trespass requires physical
presence of the accused on the property in question and Section
427 revolves around causing mischief which necessitates direct
involvement in damaging or destroying property, whereas,
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024
petitioner being not present in the country, the offence as alleged
against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of process of law.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly contended that
the averments of the complaint fail to demonstrate the
involvement of petitioner in any of the activities warranting penal
consequences in relation to the case. He lamented that there is
lack of evidence indicating that petitioner has criminally
trespassed or damaged the property of FTL land by any means.
Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for
petitioner and contended that as per the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2, during her field inspection she noticed criminal
trespass over the FTL land and as the said matter requires
detailed investigation, the proceedings against the
petitioner/accused No.3 cannot be quashed at this stage.
Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going
through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the
complaint averments, the respondent No.2 is a Government
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024
Official who lodged written complaint on behalf of the
Government, stating that the FTL land is occupied and trespassed
by private persons for constructing rooms on the said land which
will cause damage and inconvenience at large, whereas, the
contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner
was out of country during the period of the alleged trespass
incident and there are no specific allegations levelled against the
petitioner.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that 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 offence against the accused persons, as alleged by
the Police. That being so, it is imperative 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:
"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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024
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. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it is noted that
though the respondent No.2 alleged that there is criminal trespass
over the FTL land, the version of the petitioner is that he is the
original and rightful owner of the said property and that being so,
the question of trespass does not even arise. Further, it is also the
specific contention of learned counsel for petitioner that during the
period of alleged incident, the petitioner was not present in the
country.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that whether the said FTL land situated in
survey Nos.2 and 3, of Krishna Nagar, Gajularamaram Village,
belongs to petitioner is a matter that cannot be decided at this
stage. Further, the plea of the petitioner that he being out of
country at the time of alleged incident cannot be a ground to
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3370 OF 2024
quash proceedings initiated against him and the same requires
investigation.
12. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the matter
requires investigation and full-fledged trial and there are no merits
in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner/accused No.3 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 19.07.2024
PT
