THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.202 of 2022

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC No.4863 of 2021 on the file of VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

2. The brief facts of the case as per defacto complainant are that the petitioners herein/accused Nos.2 and 3, on 20.12.2015 in collusion with accused No.1, came to her flat abused her in filthy language to vacate the said flat and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, she lodged a complaint before the Miyapur Police Station, which was registered in crime No.121 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard Mr.J.Prabhakar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Aziz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 is the father of petitioner No.1 herein and he is the absolute owner of the flat in dispute. The defacto complainant was the tenant and she along with her husband resided in the said flat on lease and paid the rents upto January 2016 and committed default from 01.03.2016 and due to matrimonial proceedings against the defacto complainant and her husband, the 2^nd respondent obtained residential protection order for residing in the suit schedule, which is the flat in dispute herein and the 3^rd respondent herein stopped visiting 2^nd respondent herein and on noticing the same, the petitioner/accused No.2 sent termination notice on 18.11.2015 to vacate and to handover the flat by December, 2015 on the ground of bonafide requirement, but they failed to vacate the premises and the petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.928 of 2016 on the file of VIII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for eviction of defendants therein from suit schedule mentioned property and the trial Court decreed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.2018 and by way of E.P.No.39/2018 on 10.12.2018, he took possession of the property. He further submitted that this is a counter blast case to the said civil dispute and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. A perusal of the material placed on record shows that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, who are son and father are the owners of the property and the trial Court has decreed the suit directing the defendants therein to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of judgment and accordingly execution was also made. It is apparent from the charge sheet that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and a criminal colour has been given to a civil dispute. It is only a counter blast case filed by the defacto complainant with respect to the termination notice issued by the petitioner/accused No.2 to vacate the flat.

7. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whe