THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2722 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.256 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Alampur, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mrs. Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the de facto complainant, LW-2/K.Sreeramulu and LW-3/Mahammad Gouse are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.29 gts. in Sy.No.117 (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). The subject land was leased to LW-4/G.Seethaiah, who cultivated red gram and cotton crops. On 23.07.2019, the petitioner-accused No.1 along with accused No.2, claiming ownership over the subject land, have criminally trespassed into it and caused damage to the standing crop using a tractor, thereby resulting in loss to the de facto complainant and LWs.2 to

4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the complaint. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, having acquired it through his father, who purchased the same from its original owners by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3233 of 2006, dated 19.12.2006. The vendors of petitioner-accused No.1’s father filed a civil suit against the father of the de facto complainant, along with an application for temporary injunction. By order, dated 17.09.1993, temporary injunction was granted in favour of the vendors of petitioner- accused No.1’s father. Challenging the same, C.M.A.No.109 of 1993 was preferred by the father of the de facto complainant and others, which was dismissed on 18.01.1994. Subsequently, the civil suit was decreed in favour of the vendors of petitioner-accused No.1’s father on 25.04.1995. An Appeal was filed against the decree of the civil suit, but the same was dismissed for default. When the petitioner-accused No.1 is the owner of the subject land, the question of trespass does not arise. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The record discloses that there are disputes between the parties with regard to the subject land, which are purely civil in nature. Although the alleged incident had occurred on 23.07.2019, the present complaint was lodged on 27.07.2019, with no explanation provided for the delay.

7. The father of petitioner-accused No.1 purchased the subject land from its original owners and possessors namely K.Venkata Ramanamma and K.Bhagyamma for a valid consideration through a registered sale deed bearing document No.3233 of 2006, dated 19.12.2006. When the father of de facto complainant interfered with their possession, the vendors of petitioner-accused No.1’s father have instituted a civil suit against him and others vide O.S.No.39 of 1993, in which the father of de facto complainant was arrayed as defendant No.6. They have also filed I.A.No.232 of 1993 in O.S.No.39 of 1993 and