IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Arun Kochouseph Chittilappilly And Others - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Telangana, Rep.,PP And Another - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8650 of 2017
Decided on : 30-04-2025
ORDER :
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 10, 12 and 15 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram.
2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel representing on behalf of M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/1st respondent and Sri Kireet, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
3. CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the trial Court was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 427, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein and others basing on the crime in FIR No.226 of 2013, of Police Station, Maheshwaram, Cyberabad District, on a complaint lodged by Mucha Yadagiri Reddy, i.e. the 2nd respondent herein and General Power of Attorney holder of one Gunuganti Ravindar Rao alleging that Wondarla Holidays Private Limited, which is the owner of adjacent lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, to whom the 2nd respondent herein is the general power of attorney, by colluding with the pattadars and others encroached into the lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao and damaged the boundary stones with a view to grab the said property.
4. Basing on the said allegations, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was laid into the trial Court, which Court, upon taking cognizance, assigned CC No.604 of 2016 to the same. The contents of the said charge-sheet are as under :
The 2nd respondent is the General Power of Attorney Holder of Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, who, purchased land admeasuring Ac.13-26 guntas in Sy.Nos.263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273, 274 and 275 situated in Kongara Khurd-A Raviryal Village limits vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3042 of 2005. Since then Ravindhar Rao is in peaceful possession of the property, while his vendors were in possession of the property for the last 50 years. There is approximately 120 acres of land in the above survey numbers and all the 15 owners are in peaceful possession of their respective parts of the land. In the years 2011 and 2012 the representatives of "Wonderla Holidays Private Limited Company" approached and requested said Ravindhar Rao to sell the property to them. When Ravindhar Rao refused to sell the lands to them, Wonderla Holidays Pvt. Ltd. Company by conspiring with T.Sunil Kumar/A5, Raviryala villager G.Madusudhan Gupta-GPA holder of Wonderla and their vendors viz. (1) Smt.M.Sarala Kumari/A7, (2) Smt.M.Sunanda Raj/A8, (3) Smt.M.Vijaya Laxmi/A9, (4) Nimma Sujeevan Reddy/A4 and (5) A.Vijay Kumar/A6 along with the vendors and GPA holders of the documents bearing Nos.1637/2012, 1454/2012, 1455/2012, 1638/2012, 18/25/2012 and 691/2012, with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant's principal, cheated him by executing the above said registered documents showing boundaries differently from the link documents and got them registered at the SRO, Maheshwaram. Basing on the wrong boundaries shown in the above registered documents, Wanderla company criminally trespassed into the lands of Ravindhar Rao and removed the existing boundaries. Nimma Ravinder Reddy has assisted directly and indirectly for the criminal trespass and registering the documents with wrong boundaries. Further, Wonderlaw Holidays Limited filed a civil suit in OS No.2202 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Ravinder Rao seeking Injunction. Therefore the complainant has requested the police for necessary action against the above said individuals.
5. Basing on the allegations made in the above complaint, LW-22/M.Gangadhar, Inspector of police, Maheshwaram Police Station registered a case in FIR No.266 of 2013 for
The court ruled that civil disputes cannot be disguised as criminal offences, and allegations of conspiracy and forgery necessitate a full trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, especially in the presence of pending....
Criminal proceedings should not be pursued when the dispute is purely civil and lacks essential elements of a cognizable offence, to prevent misuse of criminal law.
The court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when disputes between the parties constitute only civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the Courts would not permit a person to be harassed. T....
The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence and were purely civil in nature.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.