Telangana High Court
Thummalapally Sai Vikram Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.995 OF 2024
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in
C.C.No.1019 of 2021 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge-
cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar,
Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against them are
under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The facts of the case are that on 04.08.2020 the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that
in the year 1991-92 one P.Narsimha possessed land admeasuring
Ac.4.00 guntas in Sy.No.674, Amberpet village Revenue and given
GPA in favour of P.Sudha Laxmi and Vijayasimha. They also
purchased some extent in the adjacent land and made house plots
in the name of Green Field Colony venture. The 2nd respondent
purchased one plot bearing No.214 admeasuring 200 Sq yards in
the said venture and got registered on 25.09.2006 and others also
purchased plots in the said venture and got the same registered in
their names, erected the boundary stones and have been in
possession of their respective plots. While so, in the year 2012
P.Narsimha again sold Ac.3.00 of land out of the land already sold
to one P. Iylaiah, who in turn sold Ac.2.00 to one Vikram Reddy.
When P.Narsimha sold land to Iylaiah, the plot owners approached
the Court and filed case against P.Narsimha and Iylaiah. The
judgment was rendered in favour of the plot owners. Since then,
they were in possession of their lands. While so, on 02.08.2020,
the petitioner along with others criminally trespassed into his plot,
damaged boundary poles and got constructed some part of the
compound wall. As such, requested to take necessary action.
Basing on the said complaint, the police registered Cr.No.206 of
2020 under Sections 447 and 427 r/w.Section 34 of IPC.
3. Heard Sri R. Rama Brahmma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Even though notice is
served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land
admeasuring Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.674/Part and his name was also
mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass book was also
issued in favour of petitioner. The petitioner entered into oral
agreement of sale with Pilli Iylaiah and paid token amount, that
the said vendor acknowledged the receipt of token amount. The
petitioner paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- out of
Rs.24,00,000/- to Pilli Iylaiah and when Pilli Iylaiah failed to
execute registered sale deed, he filed O.S.No.557 of 2016 on the
file of III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, for specific
performance of contract and the said suit was decreed on
13.10.2016. Petitioner also filed E.P.No.317 of 2017 for execution
of sale deed and delivery of vacant possession of land. The III-
Additional District Judge, executed registered sale deed in favour
of petitioner and on 12.06.2018, the bailiff delivered vacant
possession of E.P. Schedule property to the petitioner. Since the
date of delivery of land, petitioner is in possession of property and
he also constructed compound wall for the entire land in order to
protect the agricultural fields. The 2nd respondent along with
others came to the site and demolished some portion of the
compound wall. Hence, petitioner lodged complaint against
Madhusudhan Reddy, Chary, Ravi and others before the Police
Abdullapurmet Police station and the same was registered as
Cr.No.206 of 2020. The further contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that petitioner filed a suit for bare injunction, vide
O.S.No.521 of 2020 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge
at Ranga Reddy District. Along with the said suit, petitioner also
filed I.A.No.294 of 2020 and in the said I.A., ad-interim injunction
was granted and the same was extended from time to time. The
2nd respondent herein is defendant No.10 in the said suit and
pursuant to the direction of the III-Additional District Judge, the
bailiff of the Court delivered vacant possession of land, he took the
signature of petitioner on the delivery report on 12.06.2018.
Since, then he is in physical possession of the property. His
further contention is that suppressing the material facts, the 2nd
respondent lodged complaint against the petitioner and other
accused with a view to grab the property of petitioner. As such,
prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that
there is damage to the Kaddis and petitioner entered into the
property of 2nd respondent. At this stage, it cannot be said that
property belongs to the petitioner or the 2nd respondent. As such,
it requires trial. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material
placed on record it is noted that civil disputes are pending between
the parties. Petitioner herein filed suit for injunction, wherein the
2nd respondent herein is defendant No.10. Further, both parties
have filed civil cases against each other and the averments in the
petition and the statement shows that damage is caused to the
property of 2nd respondent. Though there are civil suits pending,
pendency of the same is not a ground to quash the proceedings.
When there is damage to the property, it requires trial and the trial
Court has to decide whether the damage was done by the
petitioner.
7. However, 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 offences as
alleged by the Police.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent 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 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,
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material."
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), this Court does not find any merit in this criminal petition
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1019 of 2021 pending on the
file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District against the
petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :07.06.2024
Rds
