Telangana High Court
Mr. Palem Vijayananda Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1944of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C) to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in
C.C.No.294 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860
(for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that One Sodan Pawan Kumar
Reddy, lodged a complaint before the Police, Chevella Police
Station, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner and other
accused stating that he along with one M. Pushpanath Reddy,
have purchased the land for an amount of Rs.45,00,000/-,
admeasuring Ac.11.29 guntas, in Sy.Nos.94/A, 42/A/2,
43/A/2, 44/A/2, 45/A2, 46/A/2, 47/A/2, 94/AA/2, 97/A/2,
41/A/2, 94, 46/A/1, 47/A/1, 97/A/1, 45/A/3 situated at
Gundala Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from
the petitioner, who is representing M/s. Vijayabheri Estates N
SKS,J
Constructions Private Limited. The said Sodan Pawan Kumar
entered into an agreement of sale and paid an amount of
Rs.40,00,000/- towards part sale consideration on terms and
conditions. The said Sodan Pawan Kumar requested the
petitioner to register the sale deed but he is evading the same
on one pretext or the other. Later, the said Sodan Pawan
Kumar filed suit vide O.S.No.1049 of 2007 for specific
performance. Thereafter, some unknown persons criminally
trespassed into the schedule land and removed the notice
board and threatened their GPA holder and other.
3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.17 of 2008. After completion of
investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.11 of 2010
before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga
Reddy District and thereafter, on completion of full-fledged
trial, accused Nos.2, was acquitted. However, the
petitioner/accused No.1, was not aware that a case was
pending against him before the trial Court, as such, the case
was split up against the petitioner and renumbered as
C.C.No.294 of 2012, before the learned Judicial Magistrate of
SKS,J
First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the
present Criminal Petition.
4. Heard Sri Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatas
there was no evidence against accused No.2,who wasthe
accused in same Crime,after full-fledged trial, he was
acquitted. He further submitted that even if the trial is
conducted against the petitioner/accused No.1, no purpose
would be served, as such, prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against him.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that though
the case against accused No.2 ended in acquittal,the
petitioner/accused No.1 has to appear before the trial Court
and face the trial and therefore, the same will be decided by
the trial Court.
SKS,J
7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and having gone through the material
available on record, it appears that the trial Court has
conducted trial for accused No.2 vide C.C.No.11 of 2010
wherein, the prosecution has examined only one witness i.e.,
PW.1 who is the Investigating Officer. Except the evidence of
PW.1 there is no other evidence against the accused No.2. The
LW.1 who is complainant, has died and the prosecution has
not examined remaining witnesses.Therefore,as the allegation
against the accused No.2, was not established, he was
acquitted in C.C.No.11 of 2010.
8. Though there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and various High Courts, this Court would
rely upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Courtin Pothula Suresh Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1
and Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2, whereunder, it
was observed that when some of the accused in the same case
found not guilty and are acquitted after full-fledged trial, the
proceedings against the other accused are liable to be
quashed.
2011 Crl.L.J. 609
(2018) 11 SCC 570
SKS,J
9. In the present case also, accused No.2 was acquitted
after full-fledged trial in C.C.No.11 of 2010. Except the
evidence of P.W.1 who is the Investigating Officer, there is no
other evidence to identify the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence,
continuation of proceedings is unwarranted. Therefore, the
proceedings in C.C.No.294 of 2012 against the
petitioner/accused No.1is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1in C.C.No.294
of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 06.06.2024
PT
