Court emphasizes prima facie evidence sufficiency for cognizance in criminal trespass dispute, asserting civil disputes shouldn’t masquerade as criminal. Petitioner’s rights remain under scrutiny.

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.662 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Jangaon, Jangaon District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 426 , 447 and 506 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants were the owners and possessors of a house plot admeasuring 372.22 square yards situated in Sy.No.79 of Jangaon Town and District, who purchased the plot through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.3082/2019 dated 23.02.2019. Later, they discovered errors in the boundary descriptions and rectified them through a registered rectification deed vide Document No.7959/2019 dated 07.06.2019. After purchase, they cleaned the land, filled a large pit using a JCB, and applied for regularization under the Layout Regularization Scheme, 2020, paying the required fees. While the complainants were away due to a family medical emergency, the petitioner, a senior doctor in Jangaon, allegedly, trespassed into their plot in December 2020, dug a borewell, and began construction. Upon learning the same, the complainants lodged a complaint with the Jangaon Police on 17.12.2020, but no FIR was registered. They later approached the Police Commissioner, Warangal, and the Municipal Commissioner, Jangaon. The Municipal authorities cancelled the building permission of petitioner via proceedings in ROC No.G1/1543/2021 dated 07.01.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.864 of 2021 before this Court, and this Court remanded the matter for fresh inquiry.

3. The Municipal Commissioner, by order dated 04.03.2021, directed both parties to resolve the title dispute in a competent civil Court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6586 of 2021 and obtained interim suspension orders on 19.03.2021. Allegedly taking advantage of the interim orders, the petitioner is said to have re-entered the plot and resumed construction. The complainants alleged that the petitioner’s plot, as per his own documents, was located over 200 square yards away, behind a petrol pump, and in different survey numbers (79, 80, and 81), whereas, their plot exclusively lay in Sy.No.79 and that there is alleged illegal trespass, criminal intimidation, and wrongful loss with the aid of police and political influence. The complainants produced sale deeds, rectification deed, LRS payment receipt, and other supporting documents, and the trial Court found that the facts disclosed prima facie offences under Sections 426 , 447, and 506 IPC, and accordingly cognizance was taken and complaint was registered as CC.No.1662/2021 for enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri C.Ruthwick Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.Vivekanada Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State, and Sri MV.Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. He contended that no such incident, as alleged in the complaint, ever took place, and the said complaint was deliberately filed with an intention to harass and blackmail the petitioner. He averred that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature, but the respondents have attempted to give it a criminal colour by lodging a false complaint. He lamented that the trial Court has erroneously taken cognizance of the complaint in a routine and mechani