Chittireddy Sadhakar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 4055 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4055 Tel
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2024

Telangana High Court

Chittireddy Sadhakar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 4 October, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.5337 of 2023

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 in C.C.No.323 of

2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Alair, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 447 and 427 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 stating

that he purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.20

guntas in Sy.No.314/2, 314/3, 314/4 situated at Saidapur

Village, vide sale deed bearing document No.926/1997. On

18.03.2017, he applied for Survey before the Tahsildar and

accordingly, Government Mandal Surveyor visited his property

and conducted survey and marked the boundaries. On

22.04.2017, he erected stone kadis encircling his property.

Thereafter, on 26.04.2017, the petitioner damaged and

removed the stone kadis and tried to raise the basement wall

in the land of respondent No.2. Basing on the said complaint,

SKS,J

Police registered a case in Crime No.115 of 2017 for the

offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC and

after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide

C.C.No.323 of 2018, before the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Alair.

3. Heard Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, 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 and Sri M. Rama Krishna, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegations leveled against the petitioner are vague and

baseless. As seen from the 161 statements filed by

respondent No.2, respondent No.2 bore grudge against the

petitioner and foisted false case against him. 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

petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

SKS,J

submitted that even though, respondent No.2 is the owner of

the property, the petitioner trespassed into the land and also

damaged the property and tried to raise basement and

compound wall, which requires trial. Therefore, he prayed the

Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the parties and

a perusal of the material available on record, the main

contention of learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner entered into the land of

respondent No.2 and damaged the stone kadis and tried to

raise basement and compound wall.

7. 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

averments 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.

8. 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."

9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand and as seen

from the record, the Police recorded the statements of L.W.1

and L.W.2, who stated that the petitioner entered into the

land of respondent No.2 and damaged stone kadis and also

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J

tried to construct the basement and compound wall. Since

there are allegations against the petitioner, at this stage, it

cannot be said that the matter is purely civil in nature and the

same requires trial.

10. In view of the above discussion and as per the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya