Telangana High Court
V. Srikanth Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11908 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 in
Crime No.505 of 2024 of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station,
Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 417 and 420 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 against the petitioner
and other accused stating that One Sitamma filed a petitioner
before him alleging that Rayudu cheated her by selling a plot
admeasuring 100 square yards in Sy.No.523, Government
Land, Christianpally Village, for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. It
is further stated that the said Sitamma claimed the land
which was part of the property of respondent No.2, where she
built a temporary house in 120 square yards, which the
Government demolished as it was on illegally constructed on
SKS,J
the Government Land. In the year 2021, respondent No.2 sent
a letter accusing Rayudu of encroaching the Government
lands, creating plots, constructing houses, and selling them,
as such, the case was registered as Crime No.604 of 2021
against him. Basing on the said complaint, the Police
registered a case in Crime No.505 of 2024, for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 417 and 420 of IPC. Hence,
the present criminal petition.
3. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda
Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arraigned as accused No.4 in the subject crime
and that the FIR was registered based on the complaint given
by respondent No.2, for the offenses under Sections 406, 417,
and 420 of IPC, later added Sections 467, 468, 471, and 474
read with 34 of IPC. He further submitted that the complaint
shows that Rayudu cheated Seethamma by selling
government land, and the investigation of Mandal Revenue
Inspector supported this claim. He further submitted that
SKS,J
there is no involvement of the petitioner and his name was
added without any allegation or evidence. He further
submitted that the allegations do not constitute the offenses
as alleged and that implicating the petitioner is nothing but
abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the petitioner stating that
there are serious allegations against the petitioner and
investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, at this stage,
quashing of proceedings against petitioner does not arise.
Hence, 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.
Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the
avermetns made in the complaint and the statements of the
witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute
SKS,J
any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the
proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.
7. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1 ,
wherein in paragraph No.14, held 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."
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and a perusal of the material
available on record, it is to be noted that accused No.1
misused the Government properties and created pattadars.
Furthermore, there are specific allegations against this
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
petitioner and the case is in investigation stage. This Court is
of the opinion that the present case is not covered by the
circumstances enumerated in "Bhajanlal Case". The
allegations in the F.I.R. at this stage can't be held to be false
or vindictive.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), since there are serious
allegations against the petitioner which requires investigation,
it is premature to determine their involvement without a
thorough probe. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the
criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner, rendering it liable for dismissal.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.11.2024
SAI
