Telangana High Court
Yenugula Madhusudhan vs The State Of Telangana on 20 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6686 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the
proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.185 of
2018, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge,
Alair.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioners/accused, who are residents of Alair village in
Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, are engaged in farming
and small businesses. Based on the permission granted
by the Government officials, the ancestors of the
petitioners, who belong to Vadera and Kurma backward
ST communities, constructed houses in Sy.No.1037 of
Alair village and living there peacefully. While so, in the
year 1976 basing on the complaint lodged by the Waqf
EVV,J
CRLP_6686_2023
Board, the Police registered a case in Crime No.45 of
1976 against the ancestors of the petitioners for the
offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. After
completion of the investigation, the same was numbered
as C.C.No.232 of 1976 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Bhuvanagiri. After full-fledged trial, the
accused therein were acquitted vide judgment dated
30.10.1979. However, since the members of the Waqf
Board were interfering with the possession of the said
land, a suit in O.S.No.169 of 1982 on the file of Principal
District Munsif Court, Bhuvanagiri, was filed by the
ancestors of the petitioners seeking perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants therein from interfering with
the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs therein in the
subject land. The said suit was decreed vide judgment
and decree dated 22.11.1988 in favour of the ancestors
of the petitioners, and since then, the ancestors of the
EVV,J
CRLP_6686_2023
petitioners and the petitioners have been living
peacefully in the subject land in Sy.No.1037 of Alair
village.
3. While so, on 10.02.2014, respondent
No.2/complainant filed a complaint stating that the
petitioners and others have criminally trespassed into
the Waqf land in Sy.No.1037 of Alair village and
constructed therein. Basing on the said complaint,
without verifying the prima facie case and the allegations
therein, the Police have registered Cr.No.86 of 2014 of
Alair Police Station, against the petitioners and others
for the offences punishable under Sections 447 of I.P.C
and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1955. After completion of
investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and the
same was numbered as C.C.No.185 of 2018 on the file of
Junior Civil Judge, Alair, seeking to quash the said
EVV,J
CRLP_6686_2023
proceedings, the petitioners have filed a criminal
petition.
4. Heard Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
No.1-State. Notice sent to respondent No.2/complainant
returned with an endorsement “respondent No.2 is no
more”.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed death
certificate of respondent No.2 through memo dated
10.10.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
the first F.I.R filed against the ancestors of the
petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No.1037 of Alair
village 45 years ago has ended in acquittal of the
ancestors of the petitions and hence registration of
EVV,J
CRLP_6686_2023
second F.I.R against the petitioners in respect of the very
same land in Sy.No.1037 of Alair village is nothing but
an abuse of process of law, as no one can file several
F.I.R in respect of the very same subject land. He
further contended that the trial Court has failed to
appreciate the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C while
taking cognizance for the punishable under Section 447
I.P.C and Section 52-A of Waqf Act, 1955. He also
contended that as per Section 53(A3) of the Waqf Act
1955 no Court shall take cognizance of any offence
under Section 52-A of the Waqf Act except on the
complaint made by the Waqf Board or any officer duly
authorized by the Government. In the instant case, the
complaint has been filed by the respondent no.2 without
any authorization from the Waqf Board or the state
Government. He therefore prayed to allow the criminal
EVV,J
CRLP_6686_2023
petition by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.185 of
2018.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submitted that it is an admitted fact that the
property belongs to the Waqf Board but the continuous
nature of the offence falls under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The
material facts and evidence relied upon in the charge
sheet need to be examined and after completion of full-
fledge trial only the truth will be elicited. Therefore, the
Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to dismiss the present
criminal petition.
8. It is to be seen that Section 468 of Cr.P.C stipulates
that limitation bars the courts from taking cognizance of
certain offences after a specified time frame, ensuring
that justice is pursued without undue delay. The
provision seeks to balance fairness, by avoiding
EVV,J
CRLP_6686_2023
prosecution of old offences, with the necessity of timely
justice.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for both
respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is
noticed that the said complaint has been filed under
Section 52(A) of the Waqf Act, 1955. This is specified as
being barred under Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C, which
stipulates that the period of limitation for the court to
take cognizance of an offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year is
barred. The punishment for an offence under Section
447 is three months. Therefore, the trial court failed to
appreciate the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C, in
proper perspective while taking cognizance of the offence
under Section 447 of the I.P.C.
10. Further, Section 52(A) of the Waqf Act, 1955 reads
as under:
EVV,J
CRLP_6686_2023(1)Whoever alienates or purchases or takes possession of, in any manner
whatsoever, either permanently or temporarily, any movable or
immovable property being a waqf property, without prior sanction of the
Board, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years:Provided that the waqf property so alienated
shall without prejudice to the provisions of any law for the time being in
force, be vested in the Board without any compensation
therefor.(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) any offence punishable under this section
shall be cognizable and non-bailable.(3)No court shall take cognizance
of any offence under this section except on a complaint made by the
Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government in this
behalf.(4)No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable
under this section.
11. In view of the above, this Criminal petition is
allowed and the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners/accused in C.C.No.185 of 2018 pending on
the file of Junior Civil Judge, Alair, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 13.02.2025
FM