Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19975
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. SUJATHA, J
CH.VEERABHADRA RAO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF AP – Respondent
CRLP 3408/2019
P PRABHAKAR RAO, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP), TURAGA SAI SURYA
The court emphasized that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated without following due process outlined in Section 107, especially when civil disputes are pending.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Criminal petitions filed to quash proceedings in M.C.No.21 of 2018 initiated under Sections 107 and 145 Cr.P.C. - The Executive Magistrate's order was found unsustainable as it did not follow due process and the parties had ongoing civil disputes regarding the land. (Paras 8, 14, 18)
(B) Inherent powers - High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, but should be used sparingly. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose between two parties over land ownership, leading to complaints and counter-complaints. The Executive Magistrate ordered both parties not to enter the land without resolving the title issue.
Findings of Court:
The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were quashed due to lack of proper procedure and ongoing civil suits.
Issues: Whether the proceedings in M.C.No.21 of 2018 should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Executive Magistrate acted contrary to law by not following the necessary procedure under Section 107 Cr.P.C. before initiating Section 145 proceedings.
Result: Criminal petitions allowed; impugned proceedings quashed.
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Petitions i.e., Crl.P.Nos.2216 of 2019 and 3408 of 2019 are preferred by the petitioners/A-party and petitioners/B-party respectively under Section 482 of Cr.P.C ., seeking to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.21 of 2018 on the file of Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Parawada, Visakhapatnam.
2. Since these petitions are preferred by the A-Party and B-Party, respectively who are respondents in M.C.No.21 of 2018, and that the complaint was filed by the State, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of by way of a Common Order.
3. Brief facts of the complaint lodged by the Inspector of Police under Section 107 and 145 Cr.P.C . against the petitioners herein are as follows:
a) The respondent No.1 in A-party i.e. Chelluri Amar Kumar, Senior D.G.M., Personal Department, BHEL, Visakhapatnam and also President, BHPV Employee Co-operative House Building Society Limited who lodged a petition stating that the BHPV Employee Co-operative House Building Society Limited has purchased Ac.36.00 cents of land in Thadi, Maredupudi, Manthripalem Village, in the years 1999, 2000 and 2003 for construction of a housing colony for BHPV employees. The society also obtained VUDA approval for the said layout, vide LP No.13/2014.
b) While so, the respondent No.1 in B-party is also claiming right on the subject lands in Sy.Nos.167/5 and 168/9 of Manthripalem Village showing a malicious pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in the name of Eagala Venkanna, S/o late Venkanna stating that he has been given GPA. With regard to the said dispute, a suit vide O.S.No.259 of 2006 and O.S.No.10 of 2007 were filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the judgment was passed dismissing his claim in the year 2010 and advised BHPV Society to approach Revenue authorities for necessary incorporation of lands. During that process, they also obtained VUDA certified Adangals in the name of Society. While so, when they are in possession of the entire land, the respondent No.2 in the B-party entered into the lands and creating nuisance. On the same day i.e. 18.10.2018, respondent No.1 in B- party also filed a petition stating that he obtained GPA for the land in Sy.Nos.1675/ and 168/9 of Manthripalem from one Eagala Venkanna, vide document No.6704/2006 of SRO, Sabbavaram. Recently the BHPV Society filed a case against him at RDO Court vide ROR No.6 of 2017 and RT No.6505/2017. Against the same, they filed appeal in the same Court. While the matter being so, on 12.10.2018, they also started work in the above said lands.
c) On receipt of the above two reports, the Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station, Visakhapatnam deputed his staff to conduct enquiries into the matters and accordingly he also addressed a letter to the concerned authorities requesting them to verify the records, conduct a survey and determine who is in possession of the subject property and the report is still awaited. Despite this also, both the parties have failed to maintain peace and continue to quarrel with each other regarding the above disputed land.
4. On filing of the petition under Section 107 and 145 Cr.P.C ., the same was got numbered as M.C.No.21 of 2018 before the Court of Tahasildar cum Mandal Executive Magistrate, Parawada, Visakhapatnam City and the Mandal Executive Magistrate after hearing both the parties and considering the material on record passed order stating that since both the parties are not having perfect title over the scheduled land and since an appeal is pending under the ROR Act before the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam in respect of the subject land, both A-party and B-party and their men are directed not to enter into the scheduled land until further orders. Challenging the said order, the present criminal petitions were preferred by both A-party and B-party.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A-party and B-party submitted that since the suits filed by the 1st respondent in B-party aga
