Criminal proceedings should not continue when allegations pertain to civil disputes, as they can constitute an abuse of the legal process under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.803 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Brief Facts of the case:

2.1. Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant filed a complaint wherein it is stated that he has Ac.4.05 cents of agricultural land in Survey No.349/A/1, situated within the limits of Raghunadhapalem revenue village; on 08.02.2019, in the morning hours at about 9:00 A.M., Mellacheruvu Aruna Kumari W/o Venkatramaiah and Miriyala Radhalatha, the petitioners herein, along with some others, came to his land and damaged the flake shed which was arranged for buffaloes. At that time, watchman Boda Venkati tried to stop them, but they threatened to kill him, and the same was informed to him by the watchman. This land dispute was pending in S.A. No.1273/2017 and I.A. No.2 of 2018 in W.P. No.46288 of 2018. Even then, the above-said two persons, along with some others, stated that the land belonged to them and trespassed into the land and damaged the flake shed. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the petitioners as per law.

After perusal of the docket proceedings, it reveals that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 02.12.2022 learned counsel for the petitioner sent personal notice to the respondent No.2 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due and filed proof of service vide USR No.122048/2022 dated 29.12.2022. In spite of service of notice the respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

3. Heard Mr.A.Rohan, learned counsel representing Mr.Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel For Petitioners:

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and that they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners have purchased the property through a registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration from Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah and that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers.

4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 and others are trying to interfere with the subject property. The vendors of the petitioners, namely Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant had filed two suits, namely O.S.No.408 of 2005 and O.S.No.309 of 2005, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, seeking perpetual injunction restraining interference with the suit schedule property, and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, by a common judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008, dismissed both the suits filed by Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah in O.S.No.408 of 2005 and O.S.No.309 of 2005. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree, the petitioner’s vendor, namely Maddineni Venkata Narsaiah, filed two independent appeals, namely A.S.No.93 of 2008 and A.S.No.94 of 2008, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, K