Telangana High Court
Arun Kochouseph Chittilappilly And 5 ... vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp And ... on 30 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8650 of 2017
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1, 2, 5, 10, 12 and 15 under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against them in CC No.604 of 2016 on the
file of the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram.
2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel
representing on behalf of M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing learned Public
Prosecutor for the State/1st respondent and Sri Kireet, learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
3. CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the trial Court was
registered for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 427, 468, 471
and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners
herein and others basing on the crime in FIR No.226 of 2013, of
Police Station, Maheshwaram, Cyberabad District, on a complaint
lodged by Mucha Yadagiri Reddy, i.e. the 2nd respondent herein
and General Power of Attorney holder of one Gunuganti Ravindar
Rao alleging that Wondarla Holidays Private Limited, which is the
Page 2
owner of adjacent lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, to
whom the 2nd respondent herein is the general power of attorney,
by colluding with the pattadars and others encroached into the
lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao and damaged the
boundary stones with a view to grab the said property.
4. Basing on the said allegations, investigation was
conducted and charge-sheet was laid into the trial Court, which
Court, upon taking cognizance, assigned CC No.604 of 2016 to
the same. The contents of the said charge-sheet are as under :
The 2nd respondent is the General Power of Attorney Holder
of Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, who, purchased land admeasuring
Ac.13-26 guntas in Sy.Nos.263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272,
273, 274 and 275 situated in Kongara Khurd-A Raviryal Village
limits vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3042 of
2005. Since then Ravindhar Rao is in peaceful possession of the
property, while his vendors were in possession of the property for
the last 50 years. There is approximately 120 acres of land in the
above survey numbers and all the 15 owners are in peaceful
possession of their respective parts of the land. In the years 2011
and 2012 the representatives of "Wonderla Holidays Private
Limited Company" approached and requested said Ravindhar Rao
to sell the property to them. When Ravindhar Rao refused to sell
Page 3
the lands to them, Wonderla Holidays Pvt. Ltd. Company by
conspiring with T.Sunil Kumar/A5, Raviryala villager
G.Madusudhan Gupta-GPA holder of Wonderla and their vendors
viz. (1) Smt.M.Sarala Kumari/A7, (2) Smt.M.Sunanda Raj/A8, (3)
Smt.M.Vijaya Laxmi/A9, (4) Nimma Sujeevan Reddy/A4 and (5)
A.Vijay Kumar/A6 along with the vendors and GPA holders of the
documents bearing Nos.1637/2012, 1454/2012, 1455/2012,
1638/2012, 18/25/2012 and 691/2012, with an intention to
cause wrongful loss to the complainant's principal, cheated him
by executing the above said registered documents showing
boundaries differently from the link documents and got them
registered at the SRO, Maheshwaram. Basing on the wrong
boundaries shown in the above registered documents, Wanderla
company criminally trespassed into the lands of Ravindhar Rao
and removed the existing boundaries. Nimma Ravinder Reddy has
assisted directly and indirectly for the criminal trespass and
registering the documents with wrong boundaries. Further,
Wonderlaw Holidays Limited filed a civil suit in OS No.2202 of
2012 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District against Ravinder Rao seeking Injunction. Therefore
the complainant has requested the police for necessary action
against the above said individuals.
Page 4
5. Basing on the allegations made in the above
complaint, LW-22/M.Gangadhar, Inspector of police,
Maheshwaram Police Station registered a case in FIR No.266 of
2013 for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 427, 482 and 120-
(B) read with Section 34 IPC against the accused. Apart from
crime in FIR No.226 of 2013, of Police Station, Maheshwaram,
Cyberabad District another crime in FIR No.426 of 2013 was also
registered basing on the private complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent on the file of the Police Station, Pahadi Shareef, which
was later transferred to Adibatla Police Station and re-registered
as FIR No.99 of 2015. Hence, the acts of criminal trespass and
damaging the boundaries in the lands of Ravinder Rao are
clubbed and investigated into. After completion of investigation, a
charge-sheet was laid into the trial Court, which was numbered
as CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Maheshwaram.
6. Aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings, the
petitioners preferred the present criminal petition seeking their
discharge. The contention of the petitioners through this criminal
petition is that the de-facto complainant is the alleged General
Power of Attorney Holder of Guniganti Ravinder Rao who
purchased land admeasuring Ac.13.26 Gnts., in different survey
Page 5
numbers of Kongara Khurd, Raviryal Village and that the
petitioners herein purchased land which is overlapping with the
alleged land of the principal of de-facto complainant. A perusal of
contents of entire charge-sheet discloses a civil dispute and that
the civil dispute cannot be given a cloak of criminal offence as an
arm twisting device for achievement of some expectations of the
de-facto complainant. Wonderla Holidays Limited, against whom
the de-facto complainant made serious allegations, was not made
as an accused. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the Directors
of said Wonderla cannot be made vicariously liable for the
offences under penal code and their implication is nothing but an
abuse of process of law. The petitioners/A10, A12 and A15 are
only the attesting witnesses of sale transactions in favour of the
company. The recitals of charge-sheet do not disclose any reason
or ground to charge/implicate the petitioners and the
investigating officer did not analyze the evidence. The owner of
land viz. G.Ravinder Rao filed OS No.425 of 2015 on the file of the
learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District
against Wonderla seeking mandatory injunction and demarcation
of land and that he also filed OS No.2202 of 2012 on the file of the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against
Wonderla seeking perpetual injunction and obtained an interim
injunction dated 28.08.2013 in IA No.1253 of 2012. Canvassing
Page 6
the above grounds, learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to
discharge the petitioners from the impugned criminal
proceedings.
7. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a counter is filed
mainly contending that assiduousness evidence collected during
investigation speaks volumes about the unlawful, felonious and
actionable crime committed by the petitioners and the trial Court
after thorough perusal had aptly followed the process in
accordance with law and after applying due diligence had taken
cognizance of the offences and hence, there is no error on the part
of the trial Court in such exercise. The contention of the
petitioners that the issue is merely a civil dispute is absolute
preposterous and distorted for the reason that the petitioners
have unlawfully, consciously and malfeasantly executed and
fabricated false documents to illegally and deplorably grab the
land belonging to the principal of the de-facto complainant. The
material evidence filed along with charge-sheet would clearly
prove the criminal conspiracy and common intention among the
petitioners in trying to illegally grab the property righteously
belong to Sri G.Ravinder Rao. When the allegations of forgery,
fabrication of documents and cheating are levelled against the
petitioners the same cannot be simply termed as a civil dispute
Page 7
from any perspective and angle and incontestably the said crime
is a fit case for comprehensive trial by the trial Court to bring the
true facts out in accordance with law by recording justifiable
evidence. The criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on
the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a
civil in nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused are prima-facie made out in the complaint, the criminal
proceeding shall not be interdicted. The proceedings could not be
quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with
respect to the aforesaid documents and that in a criminal Court
the allegations made in the complaint have to be established
independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court.
If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the
criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending
criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate
the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the
documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of
criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such
a course cannot be a mandate of law. OS No.2202 of 2012 was
filed by Wonderla Holidays Limited but not the principal of the de-
facto complainant and pendency of the said suit is no way a bar
to proceed with the criminal proceedings. While exercising
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court has to keep in
Page 8
mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on
a reasonable appreciation of its accusation would not be
sustained. This is a function of the trial Court. Though the
judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or
needless harassment but the Court should be circumspect and
judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant
facts and circumstances in consideration before issuing process
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., lest the Section becomes an
instrument in the hands of accused persons to claim differential
treatment only because the accused persons can spend money to
approach higher forums. This Section is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and to
bring about its sudden death. In support of their contention,
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon the following
decisions :
1. Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others 1.
2. M.Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and another 2.
3. Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and
others 3.
4. Gurdev Singh Kaler Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 4.
Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 of Hon'ble supreme Court.
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3014
AIR 2001 SC 3846
138(2007) DLT 279
Page 9
5. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and
others 5.
8. This Court perused the entire material placed on
record and heard the submissions made on either side and gave
utmost consideration to the same. The crux of the case, as seen
from the charge-sheet, is that the principal of the complainant viz.
Guniganti Ravinder Rao purchased land admeasuring A.13.26
Gnts., in Sy.Nos.263, 235, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273, 274 and
275 situated at Kongarakurd-A Raviryal Village vide registered
sale deed document bearing No.3042 of 2005 and since then he is
in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and his
vendors were in possession of the same for the last 50 years prior
to his purchase. The above said survey numbers consist a total
land admeasuring Ac.120-00 Gts., under the possession of 18
members. During the year 2011-12 representatives of Wonderla
Holidays Pvt. Ltd., requested to sell out the land for their business
needs but the said Ravinder Rao refused for the same.
Accordingly, the Directors of said Wonderla, by conspiring with
the accused and others, with an intention to cause loss to
Ravinder Rao, without verifying the documents, boundaries and
extent illegally got registered sale deed documents bearing
(2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736
Page 10
Nos.1637 of 2012, 1454 of 2012, 1455 of 2012, 1638 of 2012,
1825 of 2012 and 691 of 2012 before the Sub-Registrar Office,
Maheshwaram and taking advantage of the said documents, have
illegally and forcibly encroached into the lands of said Ravinder
Rao and disturbed the boundaries. Accordingly, apart from
approaching the civil Court, the said Ravinder Rao initiated the
present criminal proceedings against the accused.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners
that contents of entire charge-sheet disclose a civil dispute and
the same has been converted into criminal case to arm twist the
accused and the same is glaringly evident from the act of the 2nd
respondent in initiating civil proceedings vide OS No.425 of 2015
on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District against Wonderla seeking mandatory injunction
and demarcation of land. It is also evident from the record that
perpetual injunction was granted as per orders dated 28.08.2013
in IA No.1253 of 2012 in OS No.2202 of 2012 on the file of the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in
respect of the subject land.
10. Howbeit, opposing the same, learned counsel for the
2nd respondent contended that assiduous evidence collected by
the investigation speaks volumes about the complicity of the
Page 11
petitioners and that the unlawful, conscious and malfeasant acts
of the petitioners in executing and fabricating the documents to
illegally and deplorably grab the land of the principal of the de-
facto complainant cannot be termed as civil natured acts and the
same deserves comprehensive trial. The complicity of the
petitioners, attracting the criminal liability, has to be established
independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court.
11. The record goes to show that during the course of
investigation, the investigating officer examined around 16
witnesses and collected documents. Further, there are civil suits
pending with regard to the subject matter. It is an admitted fact
that there are allegations and counter allegations advanced on
either side.
12. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to
be exercised with care and in the exercise of its jurisdiction the
High Court shall examine whether a matter which was essentially
of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence.
Where the ingredient required to constitute a criminal offence are
not made out from a bare recording of the complaint, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings will constitute abuse of
the process of the Court. However, it has not been laid down that
merely because a civil suit is pending the criminal
Page 12
proceeding cannot simultaneously proceed or in view of mere
pendency of civil proceedings, the criminal proceedings are to be
stayed or quashed. When the facts of the case on hand are
perused, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the acts of
criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and illegal trespass in to
the lands of the de-facto complainant. In that view of the matter
pendency of civil suits cannot bar the de-facto complainant from
initiating criminal proceedings. It is pertinent to keep in mind
that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are the subject
matter of trial and without testing the same on the touchstone of
the trial, their complicity or otherwise cannot be decided. It is
further to be noted that crime in FIR No.426 of 2013 was also
registered basing on the private complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent on the file of the Police Station, Pahadi Shareef, which
was later transferred to Adibatla Police Station and re-registered
as FIR No.99 of 2015.
13. At this juncture, it is apt to mention herein that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles of law
as laid down in a number of judgments, including M/s.Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 6
that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
(2020) 10 SCC 180
Page 13
circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
complaint, the criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage, quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and rarity than an ordinary rule, ordinarily the Courts
are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police. However,
the inherent power of the Court is recognized to secure the ends
of justice or prevent abuse of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
and that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
14. When the facts of the case on hand are tested with
the guidelines enunciated supra and also the contentions
advanced and allegations and counter allegations made on either
side this Court is of the opinion that the same has to be tested on
the touchstone of full-fledged trial and that without conducting
full-fledged trial, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners
will not meet the ends of justice and it is a premature stage to
come to a conclusion on either way in this regard. Accordingly,
this Court is inclined to dismiss the present criminal petition.
Page 14
15. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
dismissed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated : 30-04-2025
abb
