Sangi Bakkaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2060 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2060 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

Sangi Bakkaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.6891 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 3 seeking to quash the

proceedings against him in C.C.No.784 of 2020 on the file of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Alair, Yadadri

Bhuvanagiri District, for the alleged offences punishable

under Sections 447, 427, 507 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that

himself and his brother Sangi Siddiramulu equally shared the

property belonging to their father admeasuring Acs.04.00

guntas in survey No.265 within the revenue limits of

Velmajala Village and are cultivating the same since thirty

years. He alleged that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 used

to quarrel with him and on 30.5.2020 at about 14:30 hours,

the above three persons criminally trespassed into his

agricultural land, holding sticks and axes to cut down the

SKS,J

trees and later on 23.6.2020 at about 10:00 hours they

damaged the cotton origins/germ and erected hut in the said

field. On receipt of such information, the respondent No.2

along with his younger brother went to the field and asked

them about their illegal acts on which they abused them in

filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences.

3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated

the matter and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet

was filed, wherein, the petitioners were arrayed as accused

Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri G.Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel

for petitioners, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No

representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

respondent No.2, one Sangi Laxminarayana and petitioner

No.1 are agnates and sons of Sangi Siddaiah who inherited

the agricultural land in Survey No.265 in equal shares. He

further submitted that there is a land of Grama Khantam

abutting to the said land in survey No.265 admeasuring

SKS,J

Acs.2.18 guntas, which was in the possession of the deceased

father and the same was partitioned equally among the

brothers and while things stood so, on 30.5.2020 when the

petitioner No.1 was getting his share of Grama Khantam land

leveled, the respondent No.2 and younger brother obstructed

the same, due to which the petitioner No.1 went away from

there and subsequently, the respondent No.2 got the entire

land of Acs.2.18 guntas leveled with his tractor and sown

cotton seeds. He contended that the respondent No.2 being

highly influential person, he managed to register a false,

motivated and mischievous case against the petitioners. He

further contended that without there being any evidence, the

petitioners were implicated in this case. 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 opposed the submissions made by learned counsel

for petitioners and contended that the complaint averments

disclose that the petitioners entered into the land of

respondent No.2 and attempted to damage the property, as

such, the same would reveal that there is prima facie case

against the petitioners. Therefore, stating that the matter

SKS,J

requires a detailed trial, 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. Further, while dealing with the petition filed

under Section 482 of C.P.C., the Court has to take into

consideration the averments made in the complaint and the

averments recorded in the statements of the witnesses and if

the averments made therein do not constitute any offence as

alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings

against the accused persons are liable to be quashed.

8. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the State 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

(2012) 10 SCC 155

SKS,J

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."