The existence of civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution when allegations disclose cognizable offences, affirming the concurrent nature of civil and criminal jurisdictions.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.660 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 24.07.2019 stating that she had purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.11.08 guntas in Sy. Nos. 464, 465 and 469, situated at the outskirts of Itikyala Village, Jagadevpur Mandal, through a registered GPA, after paying the entire sale consideration, and that she was inducted into possession. She claimed to be in continuous possession and had erected boundary pillars to prevent trespass and encroachment. She alleged that on 21.07.2019, the petitioners, along with about ten antisocial elements, unlawfully entered her land and erected a board, and threatened her with physical harm if she attempted to enter the land. She further stated that earlier, on 02.04.2019, the said petitioners had illegally ploughed the land with a tractor and threatened her with dire consequences when she objected. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.93 of 2019 was registered by the Jagdevpur Police Station, Siddipet District, against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gajwel. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offence and renumbered the case as C.C.No.660 of 2019.

3. Heard Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Mr. S. Malla Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the final report, the dispute is purely civil in nature. Respondent No.2 has implicated the petitioners by making false allegations under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC by giving criminal colour to settle the civil disputes pending between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and others.

4.2. The husband of respondent No.2 and others offered to sell the property admeasuring 14.00 ½ gts. and entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner No.1 on 02.04.2018. At the time of execution of the agreement of sale, petitioner No.1 paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and subsequently paid an amount of Rs.48,20,000/- on 17.05.2018. The husband of respondent No.2 assured petitioner No.1 that his wife would sign the agreement of sale stating that she was out of station at that time.

4.3. When petitioner No.1 made several requests for execution of the registered sale deed in respect of the subject property, respondent No.2 and her husband did not come forward to execute the same. Consequently, petitioner No.1 issued a legal notice dated 23.04.2019 to execute the registered sale deed.

As they failed to comply, petitioner No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2019 against respondent No.2, her husband and others seeking specific perf