SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 54371

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V.Venugopal, J
ARUN KOCHOUSEPH CHITTILAPPILLY AND 5 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA. REP. PP AND ANOTHER – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8650 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vedula Venkata Ramana, M/s.Bharadwaj Associates
For the Respondents: Syed Yasar Mamoon, Kireet

The pendency of civil litigation does not preclude the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings, provided the complaint prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of criminal offences, which must be independently adjudicated at trial.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal trespass - Petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter is purely civil in nature involving land disputes and pending civil suits - Court held that merely because a civil suit is pending, it does not bar criminal proceedings if the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences - Power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection - Issues and complicity of parties must be tested through a full-fledged trial.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, as representatives of a private company, were accused of colluding with others to fabricate documents and encroach upon the land belonging to the principal of the second respondent, leading to criminal proceedings in the trial court. The petitioners moved to quash these proceedings, arguing that their dispute was civil in nature and that civil suits regarding the property were already pending.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the criminal complaint contained sufficient allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery. It ruled that the pendency of civil litigation does not serve as a bar to criminal prosecution, as the ingredients of the offences must be independently established. The court declined to exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings, determining that such an analysis is premature before a trial.

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. solely because there is a parallel civil dispute between the parties over the same land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled at the initial stage if the allegations prima facie constitute criminal offences, and the trial court is the appropriate forum to determine the merits of the evidence after a full-fledged trial.

Result: Criminal petition dismissed.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 10, 12 and 15 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram.

Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel representing on behalf of M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/1st respondent and Sri Kireet, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.

CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the trial Court was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 427, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein and others basing on the crime in FIR No.226 of 2013, of Police Station, Maheshwaram, Cyberabad District, on a complaint lodged by Mucha Yadagiri Reddy, i.e. the 2nd respondent herein and General Power of Attorney holder of one Gunuganti Ravindar Rao alleging that Wondarla Holidays Private Limited, which is the owner of adjacent lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, to whom the 2nd respondent herein is the general power of attorney, by colluding with the pattadars and others encroached into the lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao and damaged the boundary stones with a view to grab the said property.

Basing on the said allegations, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was laid into the trial Court, which Court, upon taking cognizance, assigned CC No.604 of 2016 to the same. The contents of the said charge-sheet are as under :

The 2nd respondent is the General Power of Attorney Holder of Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, who, purchased land admeasuring Ac.13-26 guntas in Sy.Nos.263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273, 274 and 275 situated in Kongara Khurd-A Raviryal Village limits vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3042 of 2005. Since then Ravindhar Rao is in peaceful possession of the property, while his vendors were in possession of the property for the last 50 years. There is approximately 120 acres of land in the above survey numbers and all the 15 owners are in peaceful possession of their respective parts of the land. In the years 2011 and 2012 the representatives of "Wonderla Holidays Private Limited Company" approached and requested said Ravindhar Rao to sell the property to them. When Ravindhar Rao refused to sell the lands to them, Wonderla Holidays Pvt. Ltd. Company by conspiring with T.Sunil Kumar/A5, Raviryala villager G.Madusudhan Gupta-GPA holder of Wonderla and their vendors viz. (1) Smt.M.Sarala Kumari/A7, (2) Smt.M.Sunanda Raj/A8, (3) Smt.M.Vijaya Laxmi/A9, (4) Nimma Sujeevan Reddy/A4 and (5) A.Vijay Kumar/A6 along with the vendors and GPA holders of the documents bearing Nos.1637/2012, 1454/2012, 1455/2012, 1638/2012, 18/25/2012 and 691/2012, with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant's principal, cheated him by executing the above said registered documents showing boundaries differently from the link documents and got them registered at the SRO, Maheshwaram. Basing on the wrong boundaries shown in the above registered documents, Wanderla company criminally trespassed into the lands of Ravindhar Rao and removed the existing boundaries. Nimma Ravinder Reddy has assisted directly and indirectly for the criminal trespass and registering the documents with wrong boundaries. Further, Wonderlaw Holidays Limited filed a civil suit in OS No.2202 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Ravinder Rao seeking Injunction. Therefore the complainant has requested the police for necessary action against the above said individuals.

Basing on the allegations made in the above complaint, LW-22/M.Gangadhar, Inspector of police, Maheshwaram Police Station registered a case in FIR No.266 of 2013 for the offences under Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top