Telangana High Court

Chalasani Ram Mohan Rao vs State Of Telangana on 6 November, 2024

             THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA




              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9364 OF 2021

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 petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in

C.C.No.595 of 2021 on the file of XXIV-Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayath Nagar. The offences alleged

against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').

2. The facts of the case are that on 04.03.2021 the defacto

complainant-2nd respondent gave a complaint stating that their

family purchased land admeasuring Ac.13.25 guntas in

Sy.No.141 of Nadergul Village, Gurramguda Grampanchayat

vide registered sale deeds from Sri M.Venkat Rao, in the year

1996 and thereafter a layout was made in the said extent which

is known as Swamy Narayan Nagar and many of the plots were

sold out except few plots. Some of the houses were constructed

and started residing in them. It is stated that the petitioner and

others have illegally entered into his lands by removing the

boundary stones and when questioned, they threatened him

with dire consequences and with the help of others, he thwarted

their attempts. It is also stated that petitioners and others also

threatened him that they will come again and occupy the land.

The 2nd respondent is having title and he is peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the same. As the land prices are hiking the

petitioners with an ulterior motive to make wrongful gain has

illegally trespassed into the land of 2nd respondent and trying to

grab the same. Hence, requested to take action against the

petitioners.

3. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and Sri B.Karthik Narayan, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the 1st petitioner acquired Ac.9.29 guntas in Sy.No.141/2

of Gurramguda village and alienated Ac.5.39 guntas out of

Ac.9.29 guntas. Now he is the sole and absolute owner of

Ac.3.30 guntas and his name is also mutated in the revenue

records. That the Forest Department has also issued

proceedings dated 26.06.2001 stating that the boundary lines of

Forest Department are demarcated and it has no claim in

respect of the property belonging to the 1st petitioner. The

subject property is also demarcated by the Mandal Surveyor of

Balapur Mandal under a panchanama. While so, the 2nd

respondent and his henchmen attempted to trespass into the

land of 1st petitioner and threatened him and his family, hence,

he filed a complaint against 2nd respondent before

Vanasthaliputam police station vide FIR No.150 of 2021. As a

counter blast the 2nd respondent filed this complaint against the

petitioners. It is further contended that the 1st petitioner also

filed O.S.No.201 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for declaration of the sale

deed of 2nd respondent as null and void and for consequential

perpetual injunction which is pending. He further contended

that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence

collected does not disclose any offence against the petitioners.

When the 1st petitioner is the owner of land, the question of his

trespassing into his own property does not arise. Earlier

petitioners filed Crl.P.No.3748 of 2021 against the present FIR

and this Court directed the investigating officer to strictly follow

the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of

Cr.P.C and also the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar Vs

State of Bihar 1. The present complaint is filed a day after the

complaint filed by the 1st petitioner in order to harass the

petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

would submit that the 2nd respondent purchased the property to

an extent of Ac.13.25 guntas, made a venture, sold many of the

plots and all the purchasers have constructed their houses. The

remaining 49 plots were kept in possession of 2nd respondent

and other family members. The 2nd respondent also fenced the

entire venture and constructed compound wall on the south

side, whereas A.1 and A.2 purchased Ac.9.29 guntas in

Sy.No.141/2 and Ac.3.14 guntas in Sy.No.141/3 and sold out

certain part of land and now A.1 is possessing Ac.3.39 guntas,

but they are claiming part of land in the Venture in Swamy

Narayan Colony, illegally trespassed into the land, removed the

boundary stones and damaged the community hall and

compound wall to some extent and they are leveling the land.

When the 2nd respondent questioned them, the petitioners

abused him in filthy language and all the said issues require

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

trial. As such prayed the Court to dismiss this criminal

petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the

counsel and the material on record, both the parties have

purchased property in Sy.No.141. Earlier, 1st petitioner gave a

complaint before Vanasthaliputam Police against the 2nd

respondent. The 2nd respondent has also admitted that the

petitioners are having lands in Sy.No.141/2 and 141/3.

According to the petitioners, the land was demarcated by the

Mandal Surveyor, the panchanama dated 29.01.2021 and the

proceedings No.3573/2001/86 dated 26.06.2001 issued by the

Forest Department shows that petitioners herein are the owners

of property. The record further shows that civil suit filed by the

1st petitioner vide O.S.No.201 of 2021 filed for declaration of sale

deed of 2nd respondent as null and void and consequential

perpetual injunction herein against the 2nd respondent which is

also pending, shows that there are civil disputes pending

between the parties. However the judgment relied on by the

learned counsel for petitioners in Paramjeet Batra Vs State of

Uttarakhand and others 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

under :

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."

7. In the present case admittedly, the 1st petitioner and 2nd

respondent are having lands in Sy.No.141. The charge sheet

also shows that both parties are having lands in the said survey

number, the Mandal Surveyor also demarcated the boundaries

under a panchanama and the Forest Department has also

issued proceedings. Furthermore, suit filed by the 1st petitioner

is also pending between the parties. The allegations against

petitioners are that they encroached into the land of 2nd

respondent and damaged the compound wall and community

hall. There are civil disputes pending between the parties and

suit is also filed by the 1st petitioner. The boundary disputes

2 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673