Telangana High Court
K. Ajay Kumar vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 6 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.878 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime
No.415 of 2021 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Rachakonda
Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 448, 450, 452, 427 read with 34 and 120b of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 156 (3) of
Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the
petitioner and other accused stating that he had been working
as a watchman and guard, overseeing 3-guntas property at
Survey No.355/1, Gayathri Nagar, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, for six
years on a salary basis. It is further stated that Parvez
purchased this property from Qamar Hasan Razvi, the legal
heir of Hasan, who was allotted 14 acres of land through an
occupancy right certificate. However, respondent No.2 believes
SKS,J
that this agreement remains unregistered. Notably, Qamar
Hasan Razvi has been embroiled in a long-standing legal battle
with the petitioner. On 20.01.2021, and again on 14.03.2021,
the petitioner, accompanied by accused Nos.2 and 4 and their
henchmen, allegedly criminally trespassed onto the property,
damaging CCTV cameras and attempting to grab the subject
property and when respondent No.2 protested, they left and
later returned armed with cranes, iron rods, and threatened
respondent No.2 to vacate the premises. Basing on the said
complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.415 of 2021
for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 452, 427
read with 34 and 120b of IPC. Hence, the present criminal
petition.
3. Heard Sri C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1-State and Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offences and he is the
SKS,J
absolute owner and possessor of the property in Survey
No.355/1, Gayatri Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R. District,
admeasuring 15935.34 square yards, supported by Registered
Sale Deeds 9447, 9448, and 9449 of 2012. He further
submitted that Qamar Hasan Razvi and others have
maliciously filed false civil and criminal cases to coerce the
petitioner and other accused into settling matters on their
terms. He alleged that Razvi fabricated documents, disturbed
their possession, and filed a private complaint and the same
was registered as Crime No.584 of 2014, which was later
discharged by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, as such,
Razvi filed Criminal Revision, and the same is pending for
adjudication.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on
06.12.2020 when the Petitioner had visited his property and
met Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi and Mohammed Sirajuddin
Ahmed, he found that they were armed with weapons with
intention of creating anti-social elements. The said persons had
illegally trespassed and physically assaulted the Petitioner, as
such, the Petitioner filed a complaint, and the same was
registered as Crime No.811 of 2020 at P.S. Malkajgiri. In the
SKS,J
month of January, the petitioner approached the
Commissioner of Police, who in turn, directed the S.H.O. to add
IPC Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, and 420 to the existing
Sections. During the course of investigation, Mohammed Ilyas
confessed that Razvi and Ahmed fabricated documents to
deprive the rights of the petitioner. Razvi and Ahmed filed
criminal petitions i.e., Criminal Petition Nos. 630, 661, and
2012 of 2021, before this Court to quash the FIRs, which were
registered against them and a writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 4780
of 2021, all of which were dismissed with costs. Thereafter,
they filed for anticipatory bail, and this Court granted the same
on 13.05.2021 with conditions. The Commissioner of Police
directed the S.H.O. to take action against the accused, but they
failed to do so, allegedly colluding with Razvi and Ahmed
through Inspector Srinivas, who aided the accused in evading
arrest, evidenced by CCTV footage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners incessantly submitted
that Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi and Mohammed Sirajuddin
Ahmed allegedly colluded with Seker Yadav, husband of sitting
corporate of Moulali, to create false documents and to grab the
property of the Petitioner. The fabricated documents show the
SKS,J
property in Maruthi Nagar, Moulali, but actually, the property
of the petitioner was in Gayatri Nagar, Moulali. The Petitioner
requested the Police, Malkajgiri that the above said persons
were harassing and threatening him to settle with Razvi and
Ahmed, as such, respondent No.2 filed Writ Petition i.e.,
W.P.No.6909 of 2021 against the petitioner and other accused,
and the same was pending. He further submitted that Razvi
and Ahmed allegedly conspired with Yadav to file another Writ
Petition, vide W.P.No.12471 of 2021, claiming to be a bona fide
purchaser and that the Petitioner filed a Counter Affidavit in
the said writ petition and the same is pending. Furthermore,
the said Yadav has misled the G.H.M.C. officials, obtaining
building permission for the property of the Petitioner, and the
SHO has intimidated the Petitioner, prompting them to file
another Writ Petition. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner, citing collusion and conspiracy among Razvi,
Ahmed, Yadav, and the SHO.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
SKS,J
Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar
and another 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:
"8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to
the growing tenency of the complainants attempting
to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters
which are essentially and purely civil in nature,
obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or
out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the
accused to harassment. Criminal Courts should
ensure that proceedings before it are not used for
settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle the
civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be
noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also
contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so,
will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they
also amount to civil disputes."
8. Further, he relied upon the judgment of the High Court
of Karnataka in Shivaswamy v. State of Karnataka 2, wherein
in paragraph No.12, it is held as follows:
"12. If possession is not with the complainant,
she can hardly contend that the accused have
trespassed into the property of the complainant. Her
possession in the case at hand is determined by this
Court in the aforesaid writ petition while observing
that the BDA had already acquired the property for a
particular purpose in the year 1986 and the
complainant being in possession was not accepted.
Civil cases are also pending against each other.
2009 8 SCC 751
2022 LAWSUIT (KAR) 1700
SKS,J
Therefore, if the complainant is not in possession of
the property, there can be no allegation of criminal
trespass into such property, in which accused
themselves are in possession.
13. Criminal trespass as obtaining under
Section 447 of the IPC and defined under Section 441
of the IPC can be committed only when a person
enters into or upon any property, which is in
possession of another with intent to commit an
offence or intimidate, insult or annoy any person in
possession of such property. If possession itself is
not with the complainant as is held by this Court
(supra), there can be no offence of criminal trespass
into the property not belonging to the complainant.
If there is no criminal trespass into the property,
causing damage under Section 427 of the IPC, by
way of mischief of destruction of property also cannot
be alleged, as they are inseparable, in the peculiar
facts of this case."
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner stating that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner. He divulged that Parvez purchased the property
from the vendor Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi, who is legal heir of
Hasan, among the legal heirs of allotee of 14 acres of land. That
Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi is having legal battle with the
petitioner since years and on the date of incident accused No.1,
along with accused NOs.2 and 4 trespassed into the land and
SKS,J
damaged CCTV camera and the same requires investigation
and without there being any investigation, quashing of
proceedings at this stage does not arise. Hence, he prayed the
Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
10. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, this
Court observes that the said Mir Qamar Hassan Razvi along
with respondent No.2 had increasingly labeled civil matters as
criminal offenses to pressurize, harass, or extract revenge on
the petitioner. It is the duty of the Court to prevent such abuse
of process. While civil disputes should not be camouflaged as
criminal cases, it is also recognized that some civil disputes
may contain elements of criminal offenses, which must be tried
as such.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had time and again drawn
attention against misusing criminal proceedings to settle civil
disputes or scores. Each case will be evaluated to determine if
it constitutes a genuine criminal offense or an abuse of
process. The Court will ensure that proceedings are conducted
in a free and fair manner and also in accordance with the law.
SKS,J
12. In the instant case, it is noted that Mir Mohammed
Hassan and others were found to be the owners and possessors
of Survey No.355/A in Malkajgiri village. However, the said Mir
Qamar Hussian Razvi was identified as a land grabber involved
in serious offences, including forgery and cheating. Despite
this, it is found that the petitioner lacked prima facie evidence
linking them to the alleged offences, rendering the framing of
charges groundless. The dispute revolves around Survey
No.355/1, with Mohammed Moinuddin Ghori creating forged
documents and entering into agreements with the petitioner.
13. In addition to that respondent No.2 lacks standing to
claim trespassing by the petitioner since he does not possess
the property in question. Further, the trial Court previously
determined in the related crime that the petitioner acquired the
property in the year 2012, and the possession of Mir Qamar
Hassan Razvi was not recognized. With pending civil cases
between the parties, the absence of possession of the said Mir
Qamar Hassan Razvi precludes the allegations of criminal
trespass.
SKS,J
14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to
abuse of process of law due to the absence of material
evidence, as such, this Court hereby dismisses the charges
against the petitioner due to insufficient evidence and lack of
prima facie case.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.415 of 2021 of
Malkajgiri Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, are
hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:06.11.2024
PT
