Point of Law: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other

ORDER :

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner/A1 seeks to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.581/2017 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

2. On the report given by the Special Deputy Collector & LAO, APCRDA, Unit-9, Penumaka, the police of Tadepalli Police Station registered Cr.No.250/2017 against the petitioner-A1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506 & 427 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984 (for short ‘PDPP Act’). The accusations in the report given by the complainant are that pursuant to the bifurcation of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh State Government decided to establish a new capital for Andhra Pradesh on the south bank of Krishna river. For construction of State capital, thousands of acres of land was needed. The State Government has established a Capital Regional Development Authority (CRDA) for acquisition of land. The CRDA authorities have acquired the land and constructing new capital building, and for construction of capital city preliminary notification was issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the RFCTLAR Act’) for acquisition of Acs. 660.8546 cents in Penumaka Village of Tadepalli Mandal. As per the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.14516, 14518, 14525 & 14526 of 2017 directing the authorities to afford complete opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections on acquisition, the authorities made arrangements and on 11.04.2017 notices were issued to the owners. The date for hearing objections was communicated as 27.06.2017.

(a) As per the said schedule, meeting was started at 11.00 A.M. on 27.06.2017 in the premises of H.E. School, Penumaka. Large number of ryots gathered for the meeting. One Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, who attended the meeting, has raised certain objections which were patiently heard. So also, an opportunity was given to each and every ryot to raise his specific objections and to submit supporting evidence in writing if any. However, at about 12.30 A1, who is the MLA, Mangalagiri, intervened and forced the complainant and other staff to record minutes of the meeting and arguments on 11(1) objections as per his dictate and whims so as to give an impression that the meeting was not conducted properly. The complainant expressed his intention to hear the objections and answered that report would be submitted to the District Collector and decision under Section 15(2) will be communicated to the objectors and would also be published on the website. In spite of the same, A1 highhandedly went on to the dais and again forced the complainant to record the minutes and arguments. The complainant denied and explained him that proceedings would be recorded as per the procedure after completion of the hearing and informed that objectors were at liberty to file written arguments and the entire proceedings were being videographed. On hearing the same, A1 became furious and thrown the tables from the dais and the other accused pulled down the shamiyana and caused security hazard to the complainant and other public. By their acts the accused have obstructed public servants from discharging their statutory duties in hearing the objections under Section 15(2) of the RFCTLAR Act. Hence the FIR.

(b) The police investigated the crime and laid charge sheet. Cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 506 & 427 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984 against the petitioner-A1 and ten other accused.

Hence the Criminal Petition.

3. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing