Telangana High Court
Kadewar Maruthi vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1846 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 6seeking to
quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.744 of
2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
at Narayankhed, for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 447, 427, 504, read with 34of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.7.2022
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a
complaint stating that they are six brothers to their
parents and they own Acs.12.37 guntas of agricultural
land in Survey No.133 of Kangi Village outskirts and as
per the proceeding No.A3/820/2022 a survey was
conducted over the said land and boundary stones were
installed in the field but asthe accused persons own
agricultural land in survey No.116 which is beside the
SKS,J
land owned by respondent No.2, a dispute arose between
them and an ad-interim injunction order was passed vide
I.A.No.337 of 2022 in OS.No.123 of 2022 and both the
parties were instructed to not interfere with the suit
property but ignoring the said order, the accused persons
criminally trespassed into the agricultural land of
respondent No.2 and sprayed weedicides on the cotton
crop which damaged the crops.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police
investigated the matter and on completion of
investigation, a charge sheet was filed, wherein, the
petitionerswere arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6. Aggrieved
thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri Kadire Krishnaiah, learned counsel for
petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and
Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
SKS,J
5. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit
that the ingredients of Sections 427, 447 and 504 of IPC
do not attract against the petitioners as no specific
averments were made in the complaint relating to
commitment of mischief or causing loss or damage and
criminal trespass and intentional insult. He asserted that
the petitioners already obtained ad-interim injunction
order in their favour and the said complaint was made
against them only as a counterblast to the said order, as
such, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are
baseless and without any evidence. He contended that
the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are
frivolous and without any evidence. Therefore, prayed
this Court allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the
proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1, and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively,
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for
petitioners and contended that the petitioners/accused
SKS,J
Nos.1 to 6 have illegally trespassed into the land of
respondent No.2 and also sprayed weedicides over the
cotton crops of respondent No.2, as such, the matter
requires trial. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the
criminal petition.
7. 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.
8. As per thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in theState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra
Kori 1, 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
(2012) 10 SCC 155
SKS,J
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."
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made, it
is noted that the limited grievance of respondent No.2/de
facto complainant is that the petitioners have criminally
trespassed into his land situated in Survey No.133 of
Kangi Village outskirts, and also caused damage to the
crops, whereas, the stand of petitioners is that the said
allegation is false and the criminal allegations are leveled
against them only as the counterblast of the injunction
order which is in their favour.
10. As seen from the record, it is noted that the
survey number mentioned in the injunction order
granted vide I.A.No.337 of 2022 in O.S.No.123 of 2022 is
different from the survey number where the alleged
SKS,J
trespass took place. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be
decided whether the allegations leveled against the
petitioners are vague and baseless and the same can be
decided after full-fledged trial.
11. In view of the above, and as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is
of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal
Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:06.06.2024
PT
