Telangana High Court

Syed Fayyaz vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 2 September, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

      CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is

one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of

together by way of this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2

respectively in C.C.No.94 of 2021 on the file of the learned XVI

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar,

Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 447, 427 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.')

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de

facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Moinabad

Police Station stating that ten months back, prior to the filing

of the complaint, he purchased land admeasuring Ac.5.00

guntas, in Sy.No.231, situated at Qutubuddianguda Village

Moinabad Mandal, from one Haji Mohammed Pasha, who is

his brother-in-law. It is further stated that accused No.1 was

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022

having land admeasuring Ac.02.00 guntas beside the land of

respondent No.2, as such, accused No.1 is claiming that he is

having Ac.0.20 guntas in the land of respondent No.2.

Therefore, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit before the trial

Court and the same is pending. It is further stated that on

04.10.2020, the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land

of respondent No.2 and erected the stone kadis and beaten

him with hands and axe, due to which, respondent No.2

received bleading injury on his right hand.

4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a

case in Crime No.435 of 2020 for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 447, 427 and 506 of IPC and after

completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet and the

same was numbered as C.C.No.94 of 2021 before the learned

XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar,

Cyberabad Commissionerate. Hence, the criminal petition

was filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings against

them.

5. Heard Sri B. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S.

Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022

behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri Mohammed Adam,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one

Haji Mohammed Pasha is the maternal uncle of the petitioners

and there are civil disputes between the petitioners and said

Haji Mohammed Pasha. In fact, the petitioners are the victims

in the hands of respondent No.2. Previously, the petitioners

gave complaint against respondent No.2, but the Police did

not register the case against him. He further submitted that

the Police intentionally registered the case against the

petitioners in the interest of respondent No.2. In fact, the

petitioners sustained injuries and without considering the

same, the Police registered a false case against them without

conducting any enquiry.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the petitioners erected the stone kadis in their land under

the guidance of revenue officials. Therefore, the averments in

the complaint do not constitute any offence against the

petitioners as there is no damage to the property of

respondent No.2, as such, prayed the Court to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners.

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

submitted that there are case and counter case between the

parties and the allegations against the petitioners are serious

in nature, which require trial. Therefore, at this stage,

quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise

and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petitions.

9. In the light of the submissions made by both the parties

and a perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that

there are civil disputes between the parties. The main

allegation against the petitioners is that they trespassed into

the land of respondent No.2 and erected stone kadis and beat

respondent No.2.

10. 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 Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022

any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the

proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.

11. 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."

12. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, there are civil

disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2.

Further, respondent No.2 filed a suit for perpetual and

mandatory injunction and the same is pending before the trial

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.5649 & 5683 of 2022

Court. Admittedly, the petitioners and respondent No.2 both

are the land owners of their respective lands and situated at

the same place and that there are case and counter case are

filed by each other. Whether, the petitioners trespassed into

the land of respondent No.2 and erected the stone kadis

cannot be decided at this stage, and the same requires trial.