IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, especially when allegations do not constitute a prima facie case.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.5, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.643 of 2019 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City registered for the offences under Sections 427, 420, 447, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, [for short ‘IPC’].

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

a. The property of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.Nos.394/13 and 394/15B was purchased by the parents of Respondent No.2 and 12 others from Alla Appala Naidu and Alla Ramu Naidu. After the demise of his parents, Respondent No.2 inherited the said property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

b. After the demise of the vendors of Respondent No.2, their sons i.e., Accused Nos.1 to 3 created forged documents for the said land and executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Accused Nos.4 and 5. That being so, on 20.12.2019 at 10.30 a.m., Accused No.4 and Petitioner/Accused No.5 trespassed into the land of Respondent No.2, damaged the trees, notice boards and cement fencing poles with JCB situated in the said land and thereby cheated Respondent No.2.

c. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 5 which is registered as the present crime.

Grounds for Quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioner/ Accused No.5 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds.

a. The allegations made against the Petitioner do not attract the offences alleged.

b. Respondent No.2 does not have personal knowledge about the alleged trespass. When Respondent No.2 went to the place, some persons informed about the same and the Petitioner along with other Accused ran away. But, Respondent No.2 strangely alleged that they threatened him with dire consequences.

c. The subject matter is purely a civil dispute and civil suits were also filed by the Accused about the same subject property and the interim injunction granted in favour of Respondent No.2 was also vacated after due examination.

d. The boundaries and extent of the property of the Petitioner are different and distinct from that of the property of Respondent No.2 as held by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. It clearly shows that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case to gain wrongfully.

e. The present complaint has been filed against the Petitioner and four other Accused only to settle the civil disputes between the parties. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri P.V.S.A. Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Though notice to Respondent No.2 was sent, the same was unserved as unclaimed and, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.5 would submit that Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.935 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction, wherein Petitioner herein was shown as Defendant No.2. The temporary injunction granted initially in the said suit was dismissed on merits holding that Respondent No.2 herein was not in possession of the property and the subject property is a different property. Thereafter, the present case has been lodged with false and untenable allegations. There are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner for the commission of alleged offence. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law.

6. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. There are no