[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Adireddy Raja Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1085 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.1078 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXII Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabat at Medchal, registered for
the offences under Sections 447, 341, 504 and 506 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘).
02. Heard Mr.P.Pratap, learned counsel for the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-respondent Nos.1 and 2
as well as Mr.G.Kiran Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the
unofficial respondent No.3 and perused the record.
03. Brief facts of the case are that the de-facto
complainant purchased Plot Nos.308, 309, 310, 315, 316 and
317 admeasuring 333.33 square yards each total admeasuring
2000 square yards in Sy.No.149, Jayabheri Park, Kompally on
the name of his wife Smt.K.Meenakshi, from Peri Gopala
Krishna and others under registered sale deeds. Thereafter,
he got regularized the said plots under LRS. On 26.07.2021 at
about 10.30 hours, the complainant with a view to flatten the
2
land called JCB and started work. In the meanwhile, the
accused persons illegally tress passed into the above said land
and obstructed the JCB from charming the land and also
abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him
with dire consequences. Hence, complainant requested for
necessary action against the accused persons.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences. He
further submits that there is civil dispute vide E.P.No.211 of
2006 in O.S.No.242 of 1986 on the file of learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, wherein, the de
facto complainant has filed E.A.No.166 of 2007 for restoration
of the possession of the subject land. The de facto
complainant-respondent No.3 has filed the present complaint
by suppressing the material fact i.e. the above civil
proceedings. The de facto complainant is not in physical
possession of the disputed properties as on the date of filing of
this complaint. The petitioners have already lodged
complaints, dated 08.10.2021 and 26.11.2021 on the file of the
very same Police Station i.e. Station House Officer, P.S. Pet-
Basheerabad, but said complaints were closed by referring
them as ‘civil in nature’, in view of pending civil dispute. The
3
respondent No.3 is trying to convert civil dispute into criminal
case. All the allegations levelled against the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 3 are civil in nature. Hence, he prayed for
quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 3.
05. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 as well as the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended
that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined
by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the
matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial
Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.
06. This Court has taken note of the submissions made
by the learned counsel for either side. It is apparent on the
face of the record that there is civil dispute vide E.P.No.211 of
2006 in O.S.No.242 of 1986 on the file of learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. The de facto
complainant also filed an E.A. in the above E.P. for restoration
of the possession of the subject land.
4
07. As stated supra, there is a civil dispute in respect of
subject land. Even though, complainant filed E.A. agitating his
rights in the above civil dispute, the same is concealed in the
present complaint. The said suppression of material fact goes
to the roots of the case and if the said fact is disclosed in the
complaint itself, the Police would have the knowledge of
involvement of civil dispute.
08. Except stating that the petitioners-accused Nos.1
to 3 have abused the complainant, there are no specific
instances or descriptive particulars as to in what manner the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 have abused and in what way
they threatened the complainant amounting to criminal
intimidation.
09. It is evident from record that earlier the petitioners
have filed two complaints, but the same were closed by the
police referring them as ‘civil in nature’. However, in order to
prove the criminality or veracity of allegations levelled against
the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, the driver of the JCB, who
is expected to know about the alleged incident, was not
examined by the Police. The said lacuna in the investigation
amounts to fatal to the case of prosecution.
5
10. On a careful scrutiny of entire charge sheet
averments, to prove the basic allegations against the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 for the alleged offences, there is
no single independent witness examined by the Police. Out of
seven list of witnesses cited, three witnesses are complainant
and his family members, who appears to be interested
witnesses. The remaining witnesses are two panch witnesses
and two Investigating Officers. Even though L.Ws.2 and 3 are
shown as eye witnesses, they are none other than the relatives
of the complainant. Therefore, it appears that the complainant
filed the present criminal case against the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 to 3, only to settle his personal scores. As observed
supra, the driver of the JCB was not examined by the Police
which amount to a grave discrepancy in the case of the
prosecution.
11. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and others 1 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:
“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under
Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following
categories of cases are given by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or1
1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335
6otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised:
(1) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or ‘complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
7
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
12. In the present case on hand, as observed supra,
there is no direct or independent witness to the occurrence of
the alleged offences. All the allegations appear to be vague
and civil in nature and without proper evidence. There is no
proper and cogent evidence collected in support of the
allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3.
Moreover, there is a civil dispute being contested by the de-
facto complainant and the said material fact is not disclosed by
the de-facto complainant in his complaint. Therefore, the
present case falls within the ambit and parameters of point
No.7 formulated in Ch.Bhajan Lal‘s case cited supra.
Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against
the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 amounts to abuse of
process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.1078 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXII Additional
8
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabat at Medchal, are hereby
quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 30-APR-2025
KSK/KHRM
9
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
PD
ORDER
IN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1085 of 2022
Date: 30-APR-2025
KSK/KHRM
[ad_2]
Source link