Narne Gokul vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1379 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1379 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Narne Gokul vs The State Of Telangana on 27 January, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3558 OF 2018

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Crimlinal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioners/A1 to A3 to quash the proceedings in FIR No.124 of

2018, dated 09.02.2018, on the file of Jawaharnagar Police

station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(f) & 3 (2)(va)

of SC/STs (PoA) Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent - State.

Perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that A1 entered into

an agreement with the complainant to purchase the complainant's

land for a sale consideration of Rs.4.25 lakhs, but only Rs.2 lakhs

was given at the time of registration. The said registration was on

29.09.2007. However, the amount was not given as promised after

registration. Though, the complainant was in possession of the

land, however, in his absence, the accused trespassed into his

premises and removed the fencing pillars.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that the agreement was initially entered into and payments were

made. However, to demand more money, a false complaint was

filed after 11 years.

5. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgments of Honourable

Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal

and others 1 and also in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya

Pradesh 2 wherein it is held that;

"17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings."

6. The complainant and others registered the land in favour of

the petitioners on 29.09.2007. The complaint was filed on

09.02.2018 i.e., nearly 10 ½ years later. What transpired for 10

½ years was not stated by the petitioners. No civil suit was filed by

the complainant seeking cancellation of sale deed which was

registered in favour of the petitioners.

1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335

(2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 635

7. It is evident that complaint was filed after 10 ½ years and if

more amount was offered or liable to be paid, the same ought to

have been agitated before the Civil Court. None of the ingredients

of penal provisions for which the case is registered are made out