THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4958 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.342 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bodhan, registered for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 464, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Shalini Sexana, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the dispute is purely of civil in nature and that the de facto complainant is no way concerned with the alleged land in dispute. He further submitted that even according to the de facto complainant the accused are encroaching the government land and that so far the accused have not received any notice from the government authority but it is the de facto complainant who is raising hue and cry and making false allegations against the accused with a malafide intention. He further argued that when the allegations are civil in nature, there is no reason to proceed in criminal cases and that the said dispute with regard to land under the alleged encroachment can be resolved in a civil case, while the de facto complainant has initiated the criminal proceedings against the accused herein. He further argued that the petitioners are the bread earners of their families and that they enjoy a good reputation in the society and are facing much hardship ever since this complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant. He therefore, prayed to allow the petition and quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.342 of 2024.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses also reveal the allegations raised by the de facto complainant against the accused herein and that is not proper to quash the proceedings at this stage and that the evidence before the trial Court may bring out the actual truth, she therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record reveals that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 and the allegations raised against them point out that they have encroached a land which falls behind the house of the de facto complainant. It is the case of the de facto complainant that there is Government land behind his house and that the accused are encroaching on that land by creating forged documents. It is his further case that the accused have put forth an ownership certificate granted by the Grampanchayath office which has no authority to sanction such a certificate. It is further alleged by the de facto complainant that under the guise of the said document the accused/petitioners are threatening the neighbouring residents to vacate their houses.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Randeer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 14 SCC 626, wherein it was held that filing of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute is nothing but abuse of process of law on part of the complainant to implicate in a criminal case after a period of twelve years, who is neither party to the sale deeds nor a member of the Society. It was also observed that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. There is no whisper of how and in what manner, the appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge sheet, the relevant part whereof has been extracted, is absolutely vague.

8. The learned counsel further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 220, wherein it was observed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are ess