Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16508
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. TUKARAMJI, J
N.TUKARAMJI – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6267 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Manohar
For the Respondents: Jithender Rao Veeramalla
Lack of evidence to support trespass claims requires quashment of criminal proceedings to prevent misuse of legal processes.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447, 427 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner accused of trespass and unlawful construction - Court found no prima facie evidence of personal involvement in alleged illegal acts, highlighting misinterpretation of property rights post-sale - The court emphasized that stilt parking areas fall within common amenities, which cannot be exclusively claimed by the builder post the formation of a society. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Abuse of Process of Law - Principles to quash proceedings - Legal parameters established by Supreme Court to avoid misuse of law - Insufficient evidence leading to likelihood of conviction seen as grounds for dismissal of proceedings. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
This petition was submitted to challenge charges under IPC Sections that were predicated upon the allegation of encroachment and unauthorized construction in communal areas by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
Given the absence of concrete evidence implicating the petitioner and the established legal framework defining ownership and rights associated with communal property, the court dismissed the proceedings as baseless.
Issues: The principal questions involved whether the stilt parking area constitutes part of common amenities and if evidence substantiates claims against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that allegations against the petitioner lacked foundational support from strong evidence, reiterating through precedent that proceedings should not persist without valid basis, thereby preventing misapplication of law.
Result: The Criminal Proceedings in C.C. No. 1522 of 2019 are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for quashment under section 482 crpc. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. facts indicate a complaint of trespass involving rights derived from property ownership. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. opposition claims assert factual issues to be resolved at trial. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. clarification of legal ownership regarding common areas provides substantial grounds for quashment. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court rules to quash proceedings in absence of sufficient evidence. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CrPC’), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 1522 of 2019 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (now Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the aforesaid Calendar Case facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘ IPC ’).
3. I have heard Mr. P.Manohar, petitioner/party-in-person and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.2016, respondent No. 2 lodged a police complaint stating that he is the builder of ‘KKR Golden Enclave,’ situated at Kantha Reddy Nagar, Hyderguda. The project comprises 60 flats, 5 single rooms, and associated parking areas. Out of these, 54 flats and 35 parking slots had already been sold to third parties. On 19.12.2016, during his visit to the apartment complex, the complainant noticed that a brick wall had been constructed near the watchman’s room, and three parking slots allotted to him had been encroached upon by way of unauthorized construction of rooms. Alleging illegal trespass and construction by the petitioner and others, he sought appropriate legal action.
5. The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, contends that the de facto complainant is admittedly the builder. However, once the property was sold, an occupancy certificate was issued, and a residents’ society was formed, the entire property including stilt parking and common areas are vested in the society and the flat owners collectively. Accordingly, the builder retained no independent rights over the stilt parking area. Thus, the complaint alleging trespass is unsustainable, as the builder cannot claim ownership over such areas.
The petitioner further asserts that, as per the complainant’s own admission, by 2009, 54 flats and 38 parking slots (out of 41) had already been sold, leaving no residual rights with the builder over common amenities, including stilt space. Even otherwise, the petitioner submits that he is merely a legal advisor and that there is no material evidence to show that he personally encroached upon the property or constructed the alleged brick wall. Therefore, proceedings initiated against him are untenable.
Additionally, the petitioner argues that the inordinate delay of 2½ years in serving notice in violation of the principles of fairness laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]. He also relies on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 6656 of 2023, where proceedings against similarly placed accused were quashed. Furthermore, he cites Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [2010 (9) SCC 536] , to emphasize that stilt and open parking areas are part of the common amenities, which a builder cannot retain or sell after the formation of a housing society.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, according to the complaint, the petitioner and others had encroached upon certain parking slots and constructed unauthorized rooms. The de facto complainant, in his statement, reiterated these allegations, and other witnesses have also supported his version.
