Mandra Uma Devi vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 3649 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mandra Uma Devi vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1874, 1875, 1876 and 1877 of 2024


COMMON ORDER:

Since the lis involved in all these criminal petitions is

one and the same, they are being heard together and are being

decided by way of this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the docket order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition in Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of

2022 by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the then Government

of united Andhra Pradesh on payment of certain premium

amounts issued title deeds and patta pass books to 66 farmers

i.e., Gunti Narasimha and others are residents of Budwel

(village), Rajendranar Mandal and allotted different extent of

lands admeasuring Ac.281.00 guntas in Survey Nos.282 to

289 situated as Budwel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. In the year 1997, the Revenue Divisional

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District passed an order, dated

19.11.1997, cancelling the pattas granted to 66 pattadars and

evicted the encroachers. Questioning the said orders, the said

pattadars filed W.P.No.8512 of 2000, and the same was

allowed by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh directing

the RDO, Chevella, to give them an opportunity and to file

their explanation and pass appropriate orders accordingly, as

such, the pattadars submitted their explanation before the

RDO, Chevella, and the same was rejected vide order dated

13.04.2008.

4. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the pattadars again filed

W.P.No.2412 of 2002 before the then High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, and the same was also allowed setting aside the

cancellation orders dated 13.04.2008. Subsequently, the then

Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted 800 square yards of

plotted land and 200 square yards of plotted land to each

assignee in the above said survey numbers, vide HMDA

Lr.No.b5/6069/2007. Further, the land was not demarcated

from Ac.281.00 and no plots were allotted to 66 assignees and

82 encroachers.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

5. During the course of investigation, it reveals that the

accused in Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022, who are

doing the real estate business came to know about the

allotment of lands to the assignees and encroachers. Though

the accused came to know that it is a Government land, they

have approached the assignees and the encroachers and

offered to buy their respective extents of land and also get

them clearances from the concerned Government

Departments. Thereafter, all the accused in the above crimes

executed an Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.09.2020

with M/s. U & A Infra Projects for an amount of Rs.27 crores.

6. Later, as per the reports collected from the Tahsildar,

Rajendranagar Mandal, it is revealed that the Tahsildar,

Rajendranagar Mandal registered the above said lands to 166

allottees, out of which 145 allottees registered their lands to

M/s. U & A Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that

Vesella Greens colluded with M/s. U & A Infra Projects Pvt.

Ltd. and habituated to illegally trespass into various

Government lands.

7. As a result, the Investigating Officer filed a Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition/requisition petition before the trial

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

Court. The trial Court, vide order dated 29.01.2024, allowed

the requisition petition directing the Investigating Officer in the

above four cases to monitor and see the above search to

conduct and proceed with as per the procedure established by

the law and comply the same. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners filed the present criminal petition.

8. Heard Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel

representing Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024; Sri E.Uma Maheswar Rao,

learned counsel representing Sri Muriki Srujan, learned

counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1875 of 2024; Sri E. Uma

Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri D. Aniketh

Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1876 of

2024 and Sri Acharya Bharath Krishna, learned counsel for

the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1877 of 2024 and Sri S.Ganesh,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with

Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022 and that they are

not accused in the said Crimes. He further stated that the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

trial Court without applying its mind issued search warrant to

the concerned Investigating Officer, which is not in accordance

with law. He further submitted that the petitioners are not

arrayed as accused in the crimes which are referred in the

requisition petition and that the Crimes are related to certain

commercial disputes arising under certain Memorandum of

Understanding allegedly executed between the complainant

and the accused in the said crimes, as such, the petitioners

are neither concerned with the Memorandum of Understanding

nor concerned with the said transactions. The petitioners are

bona fide purchasers of the subject plots pursuant to the

registered sale deeds.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that

respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought permission from the Court and

obtained search warrant, in which, it shows that they collected

reports from the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal and found

that the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal registered the plots

to 166 allottees out of which 144 allottees executed Agreement

of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of M/s. U & A

Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., who in turn executed the sale deeds in

favour of the petitioners. On this basis, respondent Nos.3 and

4 contended that the petitioners in collusion with M/s. U & A

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., illegally trespassed into the various

Government lands. Therefore, the trial Court issued search

warrant to the concerned Investigating Officer. As per Section

93 of Cr.P.C., when executing a search warrant, the

investigating Officer, who is in charge, must search or inspect

only the area or portion, so specified by the Court, if the Court

deems it fit for the purpose of search or inspection.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners incessantly

submitted that the Investigating Officer without conducting

any preliminary enquiry in relation to the alleged involvement

of the petitioners in the said crimes issued notices to the

petitioners seeking information relating to the subject crimes.

He further submitted that the subject crimes are of the year

2022 and the search is conducted after a period of one and

half year i.e., in the year 2024 against the petitioners, who are

not part of the subject crimes.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended

that the allegation in the FIR shows that there is breach of the

MOU by the accused and the reason for search is

encroachment of Government Lands by the petitioners, which

shows that there is no relation between them. He further

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

submitted that pursuant to the impugned order dated

29.01.2024, respondent Nos.3 and 4 seized the laptops,

computers and other documents belong to the petitioners, as a

result of seizure, the petitioners are unable to undertake their

business activities. Therefore, the trial Court without applying

its mind and lack of reasons, issued the search warrant, which

is not in accordance with law. Hence, he prayed the Court to

set aside the order dated 29.01.2024 by allowing this Criminal

Petitions.

13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnana 1 and another,

wherein in paragraph No.17, it is held as follows:

"17. The appellant and his co-accused are office- bearers of a public institution styled as H.M.D.P. Sabha. We were informed at the hearing of this petition that this Sabha is a public institution engaged in the activity of running educational institutions and supporting objects or activities of a general charitable nature. When the first complaint was filed, the allegation therein was that criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of public institution has been committed by the office-bearers thereof. A search warrant was issued but it was quashed by the Kerala High Court. Thereafter another complaint was filed making some more serious allegations and a

(1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 264

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

search warrant was sought. Now, this search warrant was being issued to conduct search of the premises used as office of an institution. The office bearers of the Sabha are accused of an offence. Documents and books of accounts of the institution are required for the purpose of the trial against the office-bearers of the institution. The office premises could not be said to be in possession of any individual accused but strict sensu it would be in possession of the institution. Books of accounts and other documents of the institution could not be said to be in personal custody or possession of the office bearers of the institution but they are in possession of the institution and are lying in the office of the institution. A search of such a public place under the authority of a general search warrant can easily be sustained under section 93(1)(c). If the order of the learned Magistrate is construed to mean this, there is no illegality committed in issuing a search warrant. Of course, issuance of search warrant is a serious matter and it would be advisable not to dispose of an application for search warrant in a mechanical way by a laconic order. Issue of search warrant being in the discretion of the Magistrate it would be reasonable to expect of the Magistrate to give reasons which swayed his discretion in favour of granting the request. A clear application of mind by the learned Magistrate must be discernible in the order granting the search warrant.

Having said this, we see no justification for interfering with the order of the High Court in this case."

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

Kumari vs. Government of UP and others 2 , wherein in

paragraph No.31, it is held as follows:

"31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an inquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the

[2013] 14 S.C.R. 713

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

manner provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code."

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babubhai v.

State of Gujarat and others 3, wherein in paragraph No.32, it

is held as follows:

"30. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating officer 'is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth'."

16. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that there is no layout issued by the HMDA. The

Tahsildar registered the land in favour of M/s. U & A Infra

Projects Pvt. Ltd., who in turn, registered the lands in favour of

the petitioners. Further, there are no boundaries in the

subject lands and huge money was transferred to the

(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

assignees. Therefore, the petitioners in collusion with M/s. U

& A Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. illegally trespassed into the

Government lands and tried to grab the same. He further

submitted that though the petitioners are not the parties to the

subject crimes, is not a ground to set aside the order dated

29.01.2024. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the

order, there is no illegality to interfere with the order of the

trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal

petitions.

17. In support of his submission, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Yadaiah and Anr. v. Sate of Telangana and others 4,

wherein in paragaraph No.73, it is held as under:

"73. Importantly, we must be cautious of the difference between the terms 'acquisition' and 'resumption' in the context of property laws. While both terms indicate deprivation of a right, there exists a significant distinction in their actual legal connotation. Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of the State to deprive an individual's enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in the first place. The term 'resumption' must not therefore be conflated with the term 'acquisition' as employed within

Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2023 and batch

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution so as to create a right to compensation. Keeping this mark distinction in view, it is not necessary for us to determine whether an expropriated owner has an impeachable constitutional right to compensation under Article 300A if the Constitution in lieu of his acquired property."

18. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned

counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it

appears that the petitioners in all the cases are challenging the

docket order dated 29.01.2024 stating that without mentioning

reasons and issuing notices to the petitioners the trial Court

without applying its mind allowed the petition and directed the

concerned Investigating Officer to conduct search as prayed in

the requisition.

19. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the trial Court issued search warrant to the

concerned Investigating Officer without applying its mind. As

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.S Kuttan Pillai

(supra), the issuance of search warrant is abuse of process of

law when there are no reasons mentioned. Furthermore, it

would be wise to avoid handing a search warrant application in

a mechanical manner with a laconic order because the issuing

of a search warrant is a serious matter. Since the Magistrate

has to take the final decision for issuing the search warrant

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

but it would be reasonable to expect him to provide

justifications for his decision to accept the request. Further, a

clear application of mind by the learned Magistrate must be

evident in the order while granting the search warrant.

20. In the case on hand, the trial Court basing on the

requisition petition filed by the Investigating Officer issued

search warrants. A perusal of the requisition petition filed by

the Investigating Officer shows that the petitioners are not the

accused in the Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of 2022.

Instead of investigating the accused, who are relevant to the

said crimes, the Investigating Officer investigated the

petitioners, who purchased the said plots, issued search

warrant without issuing the notice and seized the property. In

view of the facts and circumstances of the case, while ordering

the search warrant, it is not necessary that the persons must

be the accused in the crime. Further, the learned Magistrate

has the Power to order for search or inspection of the

premises, if there is any reasonable ground as per Section 93

of Cr.P.C, to issue the search warrant. Therefore, the above

said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case on

hand.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

21. In addition to that, learned counsel for the petitioners

contended that the FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of

Cr.P.C., to conduct any preliminary inquiry and the

information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

On going to the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Lalitha Kumari (supra), held that if the information received

does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the

necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be

conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is

disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a

cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where

preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of

the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first

informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must

disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not

proceeding further.

22. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the crimes

referred in the requisition petition are not related to the

petitioners, however, the allegation against the petitioners are

that they have encroached the Government lands, which are

related to the crimes referred in the requisition petition.

Therefore, the trial Court issued search warrants to the

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

Investigating Officer and they seized the properties belong to

the petitioners. Hence, there is no force in the said contention

and the said judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the

case on hand.

23. In consequence, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 clearly acted in a pre-

mediated manner without reference to the procedure

established under law to conduct the investigation in a free

and fair manner. Further, as observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Babubhai (supra), wherein it is held that the

investigating Officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution

case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a

conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.

24. In the instant case, the trial Court allowed the

requisition petition directing the Investigating Officer to

monitor and see the above search to conduct and proceed with

as per the procedure established by law in the said crimes and

comply with the same. As seen from the record, it is clear that

during the Course of investigation, the concerned Investigating

Officer noticed that the petitioners encroached the Government

lands, which are related to crimes in the requisition petition.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are no way related with the subject crimes, they

are strangers to the subject crimes, without noticing the same

and without stating any reasons, the trial Court permitted the

Investigating Officer to issue search warrant. Further, it is

noticed that as per the law laid down in Babubhai (Supra) the

Investigating Officer rightly served the search warrant upon

the petitioners to bring out the real unvarnished truth.

25. Further, It is specifically contended by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor that HMDA did not issue any

layout pertaining to the subject lands, but MRO registered the

lands in favour of the petitioners. Further, huge money was

transferred to the assignees, as such, petitioners tried to grab

the government land. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Yadaiah (supra), wherein it is categorically held that it is

crucial to note that in the context of property legislation, there

is a distinction between the phrases "acquisition" and

"resumption." Even though both expressions refer to the denial

of a right, their actual legal meanings differ significantly.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

26. Resumption is the state's punitive action to reclaim the

right or interest in property that it originally granted, whereas

acquisition is the state's proactive act to deny someone their

enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in furtherance

of its policy. Therefore, in order to establish a right to

compensation, the term "resumption" cannot be confused with

the term "acquisition" as used in Article 300-A of the

Constitution. We do not need to decide whether an

expropriated owner has an impeachable constitutional right to

compensation under Article 300-A of the Constitution in place

of his acquired property, given this mark distinction.

27. In the present case, there are allegations against the

accused in the Crimes, which are referred in requisition

petition. In addition, there is an allegation that the petitioners

conspired with M/s. U&A Infra Projects Private Limited, who

then carried out the sale deeds in their favour. It is pertinent

to note that there is an allegation that the petitioners are being

involved to usurp the disputed land for private interests, even

before allotting the same to the beneficiaries.

28. Given the foregoing consideration and the facts and

circumstances of the Cases, this Court is of the considered

SKS,J Crl.P.No.1874 of 2024 and batch

view that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order

and this Court not find any merit in the criminal petitions to

set aside the order of the trial Court.

29. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed

confirming the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition in Crime Nos.194, 217, 218 and 219 of

2022 by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 05.09.2024

SAI