Indarapu Shankar vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1898 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1898 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 May, 2024

Telangana High Court

Indarapu Shankar vs The State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024

                                  1




          THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10389 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.861 of 2023

on the file of learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Mancherial, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

447, 324, 294(b) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case are that on 18.6.2023 at about 15:00

hours, the complainant lodged a complaint stating that, since there

is a dispute with regard to Ac.0-03 guntas of land between herself

and her sisters and brothers, when she was going to her land to fix

up the boundaries, the accused trespassed into the land and

abused her in filthy language and beat with sticks and hands, due

to which herself and her sister received injuries and hence,

requested to take action against the accused. On receipt of the said

complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2023 of

Polilce Station, CCC Naspur, for the offences punishable under

Sections 447, 324, 294(b) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code. After

completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet for the said

offences, the same was numbered as C.C.No.861 of 2023 on the file

of learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that accused No.1 is the

brother of respondent No.2 and the owner and possessor of land

admeasuring Ac.9 ¼ guntas in Sy.No.84 situated at Theegalapahad

Shivaru and it was inherited from his father Mr. Indaarapu

Komuraiah and accused No.1 sold 5 guntas of land to his sisters at

the rate of 1 gunta per person. On 24.04.2023 Gollapalli Bhagya

sold her land to Prabhavathi and Bhagya along with Prabhavathi

came to the petitioner's land and started measuring the boundaries

and they broke the bricks and on that day, they left the land after

the fight. Again on 18.06.2023 at about 3:00 p.m., they trespassed

into the petitioner's land and measured the boundaries of the

petitioner's land instead of the land the petitioner sold and this time

they broke the bricks and set fire to 'mullakampa' which is used as

fencing to the petitioner's land, upon which accused Nos.1 to 4

objected and restrained the defacto complainant from entering into

the land, then the defacto complainant insulted petitioners with foul

language and injured the petitioners by hitting them with stones

and hands. Petitioners/Accused No.1 went to the Police Station and

lodged a complaint and FIR was registered vide Crime No.143 of

2023, but the police closed the F.I.R without specifying any reason.

In the charge sheet police specified that since few days some

quarrels were occurring between accused No.1 and LWs.1 to 3 and

recorded their statements as witness, the police did not investigate

properly and filed charge sheet without any investigation. As such,

the offences alleged against these petitioners are false and, in fact, it

is the de-facto complainant and her sisters, who attacked the

petitioners and as such, though they filed complaint and registered

the crime, but the said crime was closed. As such, the petitioners

prayed the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against them.

4. Heard Sri A.Lalitha Kiran, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there

are civil disputes with regard to the land in between the family

members of the petitioners and respondent No.2 and to pressurize

the petitioners, the criminal case is filed. In fact, the petitioners-

accused were injured in the hands of the de-facto complainant and

the police without proceeding with the case, falsely implicated these

petitioners in the above case and that the provisions of Section

294(b) does not attract and, as such, the learned counsel prayed the

Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners-

accused.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

would submit that severe injuries were caused to the victims and

there are serious allegations against these petitioners and, as such

at this stage, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners-

accused cannot be quashed and the same requires adjudication.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the

learned counsel and having gone through the material available on

record, 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 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, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

9. As seen from the record, the contention of the petitioners is

that the complainant is not the owner of the subject property and

petitioner/accused No.1 is the owner of the said property and while

defending themselves, the injuries were caused to respondent No.2

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

and her sisters. However, the allegations leveled against these

petitioners show that it requires trial and, as such, at this stage, it

cannot be quashed and the statement of the witnesses and

complaint averments show that the de-facto complainant sustained

injuries in the hands of the petitioners. As such, the petition is

liable to be dismissed.

10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down