Telangana High Court
Kawada Hemalatha Sabitha vs The State Of Telangana on 7 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5175 of 2024
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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.451 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police against
the petitioners stating that he owned land admeasuring
Ac.26.3/4 guntas in Survey No.182/E situated at Gudur
Village. On 28.05.2017, the petitioners and others trespassed
into his land and damaged the stone pillars erected around
the land and threatened him to kill if he enters into the
subject land. Basing on the said complaint, the Police
registered a case in Crime No.131 of 2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of IPC
and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet,
SKS,J
vide C.C.No.451 of 2018, before the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.
3. Heard Sri N. Joy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and
baseless. He further submitted that the alleged allegations
are purely civil in nature, as such, the Police has no role to
play. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that respondent No.2 is the owner of the property
and the petitioners trespassed into the said property and also
damaged the same, which requires trial. Therefore, he prayed
the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the
proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to
see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie
show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.
SKS,J
Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the
averments made in the complaint and the statements of the
witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute
any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the
proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.
7. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra
Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14, reads as under:
"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."
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
8. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, the main contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the matter is purely civil in nature and
Police have no role to involve into the case, whereas, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners
entered into his land and damaged the stone pillars erected
around the land and also threatened him to kill, if he enters
into the subject land. Further, the statement of witnesses
shows that originally the father of the petitioners sold the
subject property to respondent No.2 and that even after selling
the subject property, the petitioners entered into the subject
property and damaged the same. Whether the petitioner
entered into the property and damaged the stone pillars,
requires trial. In view of the averments in the complaint and
statements of witnesses, all the witnesses stated about the
damage of stone kaddis and trespass.
9. In view of the above discussion and as per 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
petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
SKS,J
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, as the case is of the year 2017, the trial Court is
directed to conclude the trial and dispose of the same, as
expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and further,
both the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court
in concluding the trial.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 07.11.2024
SAI
