The court found that criminal proceedings against the petitioner could not proceed as there was no written complaint by the public servant as required under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., making the allegations insufficient to constitute a case under the IPC.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.685 of 2023 of Ameenpur Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 186 and 147 read with 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’)

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that one S. Gouri Vatsala, Tahsildar of Ameenpur Mandal sent a letter vide L.R.No.B/3599/2012, dated 23.12.2023, to him, in which it is stated that Mandal Girdawar of the said office submitted a report, wherein it is stated that on his routine Government land inspection, it is found that some of the villagers are leveling the Government land in Sy.No.119 of Ilapur Village, Ameenpur Mandal with JCB without any permission. It is further stated that the Mandal Girdawar stopped the work and sent back the JCB and warned them not to enter into the Government land and also informed them that the said land is involved in Court cases. In the meantime, the petitioner came to the spot and threatened the Girdawar stating that the said land is patta land belongs to him and how you have entered into the said land. Then, the Girdawar has informed the petitioner to bring the documents to the office for verification and requested to vacate the land, but the petitioner threatened him stating that he will see the matter at Court and warned him not to enter into the said land. On such information, respondent No.2 visited the said place and interacted with the petitioner but the petitioner misbehaved in rude manner. On questioning the same, the petitioner along with the villagers left out the place. It is further stated that keeping in view, the facts and circumstances and the existing stay orders passed by the Court, the villagers are doing illegal activities of construction with the help of the petitioner.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.685 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 186, 147 read with 149 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.

4. Heard Dr. J. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his mother are the joint and absolute owners of the subject land. The said land is private land and the authorities mutated their names in revenue records under the ROR Act, 1971 and issued pattadar pass books to that effect. He further submitted that the aforesaid land is succeeded by the petitioner and his mother from their predecessor and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. He further submitted that originally a notification dated 21.09.1987 was issued by the then Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, wherein the subject land was converted from Industrial use Zone to Residential Use Zone.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner met RDO and interacted with him and misbehaved in rude manner. On questioning the same, the petitioner left out the place along with the villagers. The said allegation is totally wrong and even if it is accepted to be correct, it will not make out any case for the offence under Section 186 of IPC. He further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 147 and 447 of IPC do not attract the petitioner