Telangana High Court
Suresh Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 10 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4477 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
petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in
C.C.No.834 of 2023, on the file of learned X Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2023, respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint stating that petitioner criminally trespassed
into the Government Land situated in Sy.No.36 admeasuring 2152
Sq.Yards at Gopanpally Village of Serilingampally Mandal. It is further
stated that the Tahsildar, Serilingamaplly Mandal had initially did not
serve the notice to the petitioner and passed Eviction orders dated
24.02.2023 in Proceedings No.B/63/2023 under Section 6 of the Land
Encroachment Act, 1905 and the same was set aside by this Court in
W.P.No.7672 of 2023 dated 29.03.2023.
3. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel, representing
Sri G. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.
Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1
and Perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent
No.2 gave complaint stating that the petitioner damaged the public
property and trespassed into the Government land, whereas there are
disputes with regard to the subject land and the eviction order was
issued, however, the eviction order was set aside by this Court in
W.P.No.7672 of 2023. As such, he prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
the petitioner encroached into the Government land and also damaged
the property. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Admittedly, the property in which the petitioner constructed
the building is a disputed property and according to the de fact
complainant it is a government land and the petitioner entered into
the government land and caused damaged to the property. The
averments in the complaint shows that the petitioner encroached into
the land, which requires trial.
7. 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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
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."
8. 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 the criminal petition to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal
petition shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE SMT. K.SUJANA
Date:10.06 .2024
ssm
