Telangana High Court
Sri. Pamu Durga Krishna Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10273 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.553 of
2023 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Special Mobile Court, at Sangareddy, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3 of the Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, (for short 'PDPP Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
NO.2/de facto complainant who works as Assistant Engineer,
Munipally Mandal, lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner
who runs business under the name Siri Shelter Private Limited
situated in survey Nos.466 and 467 falling under FTL and buffer
zone of Peddacheruvu Tank of Munipally Mandal has illegal
encroachment as per G.O.Ms.No.168 of the Municipal
Administration and Urban Development. It is alleged that
though the higher officials of said company were informed to
remove the encroachment, during inspection of tank on
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023
03.12.2022 gravel filling and construction was found in the said
place.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the
matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet
was filed against the petitioner arraying him as accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and Section
3 of the PDPP Act. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is
filed.
4. Heard Sri P.Venkanna, learned counsel for
petitioner/accused, 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 petitioner submitted that though the
respondent No.2 has alleged in the complaint, as well as, in her
statement recorded under Section 161 of IPC that the petitioner
has encroached the land as per G.O.Ms.No.168, the same would
amount to civil dispute and the same needs to be adjudicated by
the competent civil Court. He contended that petitioner
purchased agricultural land to an extent of Acs.12.08 gts vide
two registered sale deeds and that being so, the question of
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023
Section 3 of PDPP Act attracting against the petitioner does not
arise. Therefore, while reiterating that the proceeding initiated
against the petitioner is unfair, unjust and contrary to interest of
justice, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, submitted that as per the complaint and charge
sheet averments, the allegations levelled against the petitioner
are with regard to illegal encroachment in spite of issuance of
warning and the same allegations being serious in nature, the
matter requires full fledged trial. Therefore, prayed the Court to
dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going
through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the
essence of evidence collected during the course of investigation,
it was found that the petitioner/accused purchased agricultural
land to an extent of Acs.2.04 guntas in survey No.466 vide
registered sale deeds dated 18.01.2023 in favour of Siri Shelter
Private Limited. Further, he owns agricultural land to an extent
of Acs.5.02 guntas in survey No.467 where he was performing
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023
activities like farming and plantation and thereafter, the land to
an extent of Acs.2 guntas in survey No.466 and Acs.5.03 guntas
in survey No.467 was submerged in pond water affected under
the FTL and buffer zone of Munipally Village, Pedda Cheruvu.
8. In addition, it is needless to mention that 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 offence against the accused persons, as alleged
by the Police. That being so, it is imperative 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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023
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. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that before the
petitioner/accused purchased the abovementioned land, the
Telangana Government has issued common Building Rules vide
G.O.Ms.No.168 (M.A. & U.D Department) dated 07.04.2012 and
whilst having knowledge of the said Rules, the
petitioner/accused has allegedly registered the said land in the
name of his company and is illegally entering into the land and
construction wall in the pond water under FTL and buffer zone
land which damages the rain water storage area and the same
are matters which require trial. Furthermore, though the learned
counsel for petitioner contended that the matter pertains to civil
nature and the same requires to be adjudicated by the
competent civil Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is
no force in the said contention as the same cannot be a ground
to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.10273 OF 2023
10. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the
matter requires full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the
criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner/accused and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:20.06.2024
PT
