Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
KUNURU LAKSHMAN, J.
B. Ravinder Reddy and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
S. Vishwanatha Raju and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 1554 of 2021
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1806 - Sections 34 ,420, 447, 427 and 506 –Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint - Cheating and dishonesty including delivery of property –Saving of inherent Of High court - Petitioner has entered into a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney , for development of said land admeasuring out of total land admeasuring forming part of situated on terms and conditions specifically mentioned therein. They have also obtained permission from HMDA vide proceedings. Pursuant to said permission, Firm is proceeding with development of said land - Respondent and another is trying to interfere with possession of land who is owner and of said land, they have filed a suit in file of against respondent and others for Perpetual Injunction - Respondent herein has entered his appearance and filed seeking to reject plaint on ground that Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain said suit - Said application was dismissed vide, order, By referring to the said order, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the respondent knowingly suppressed the fact of pendency of aforesaid suit and also the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the application filed by him seeking rejection of the plaint – Appeal against the Order -
Finding of the court : Relevant to note that Respondent has suppressed the fact of pendency of aforesaid suit and filing of Interlocutory Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, which was dismissed by Court below and it is a contest order. As discussed above, the only allegation in the complaint is that on the instructions of the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner trespassed into the subject land. As discussed above, the possession of the 1st petitioner over the subject land is in dispute and the above said suit is pending. The contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the Section 420 IPC. There is no inducement of the 1st respondent by the petitioners. Even then, Narsingi Police Station has registered the above said crime for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Thus, according to this Court, the proceedings against the petitioners herein cannot be continued. This Court is inclined to quash the proceedings pending on the file of Narsingi police station against the petitioners by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. –
Result : Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 175 of 2021 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. The petitioners are accused Nos. 5 and 6. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 420, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. As per the complaint, the allegations are as follows:
(b) Accused persons by name Dilip Reddy, Pradeep Reddy, N. Krishna Kumari and Kiran Reddy, legal heirs of the said pattedar Jagannadh Reddy, upon knowing that their father has executed General Power Attorney to Ramchandra Singh vide Document bearing No. 2546 of 1990, with a deceitful intention, after the death of their father Jagannadh Reddy, claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of the said Ac. 33-00 guntas of land, made double registration through Agreement-cum-Sale and General Power of Attorney vide Document bearing No. 6242 of 2005 to Sriven Construction Company and cheated the 1st respondent/complainant. The said Sriven Construction Company, in the year 2007, sold the said land to one Ravinder Reddy i.e., the 1st petitioner/accused No. 5. Accused including the 1st petitioner are residents of Kollur Village, Medak District, and his Manager, Bhaskar Reddy (wrongly mentioned as Bhaskar Rao) the 2nd petitioner/accused No. 6 along with their henchmen are trying to encroach the 1st respondent's land from the year 2018 and threatened him on several occasions to vacate his land and also damaged the iron walls in the land in the year 2007. The Collectors of Ranga Reddy District and Medak District, have conducted a survey to decide the jurisdiction and demarcation of their respective Districts. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in his proceedings dated 05.02.2007, stated that the said land is in the topography of Ranga Reddy District. The Collector also gave No Objection Certificate to the 1st respondent.
(c) It is further alleged that on 20.02.2021 at about 18:30 hours, while the 1st respondent was in the said land, as per the instructions of the 1st petitioner/accused No. 5, his Manager, the 2nd petitioner/accused No. 6, have criminally trespassed into the said land belonging to the 1st respondent/complainant along with JCB vehicle without number plate, driven by one Nagani Srikanth and Tractor bearing No. TS-07-UJ-0915 driven by one C. Vikram Reddy, threatened the 1st respondent/complainant with dire consequences and they have made the complainant to vacate the land and further, they have demolished the room in the land and taken away the agricultural tools. The complainant came back to his land and noticed the damage caused to his land and lodged the present complaint.
(d) On receipt of said complaint, dated 21.02.2021, the police, Narsingi registered a case in Crime No. 175 of 2021 for
Point of law: when a dispute essentially of a civil nature is given the cloak of criminal offence and if a civil remedy is available, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedi....
Allowing criminal proceedings to continue, without there being any criminal element, is not permissible and it amounts to abuse of process of law.
The existence of civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution when allegations disclose cognizable offences, affirming the concurrent nature of civil and criminal jurisdictions.
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
