Telangana High Court
Bukali Shekar Shekariah vs The State Of Telangana on 22 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12234 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 No.9 in
C.C.No.177 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kosgi,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448,
427, 504 and 506 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 against the petitioner
and other accused stating that five years ago, he built a shed
on his land and operated a fertilizer shop, Shirisha Fertilizers.
On 18.01.2022, the petitioner and other accused trespassed
into his land, destroyed the shed, and abused him. When
questioned, they claimed ownership and threatened to kill him
if he returned to the said shop. Basing on the said complaint,
the Police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2022 for the
SKS,J
offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 504 and 506
read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they
filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.177 of 2022, before the learned
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kosgi.
3. Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan 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 B. Shiva Kumar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegations are baseless and vague, aimed at harassing the
family of the accused to withdraw their civil case. He further
submitted that there are no specific allegations against the
petitioner, and thus, the proceedings against him are liable to
be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner stating the allegations leveled against the petitioner,
requires trial and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal
petition.
SKS,J
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2
filed counter affidavit, strongly denying the claims made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the
petitioner and other accused individuals committed criminal
trespass and damaged valuable pesticides worth lakhs of
rupees at the shop of respondent No.2 and these are serious
allegations that necessitate a trial, and therefore, he requested
the court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash
the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to
see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows
that it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as
alleged by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is
held as follows:
"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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
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 both the
learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that there are land dispute between the
petitioner and others. The petitioner and others criminally
trespassed into the shop of respondent No.2, destroyed the
shed with crowbars and they abused and threatened him.
Since there are serious allegations against the petitioner, at
this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations against him
are vague and baseless and the same requires trial.
Therefore, this Court does not any merit in the criminal
SKS,J
petition to quash the proceedings against petitioner and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the firm view that
the matter requires full-fledged trial. There are no merits in
the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner/accused No.2 and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 22 .10.2024
PT
