Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1256 (AP)

Bussa Rajendra v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-02

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in CC No.1822 of 2019 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor for the offence under Sections 447, 379 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short "IPC"). 2. The factual background leading to filing of this petition : (a) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the residents of Thumbapalem Village, Bangarupalem Mandal. There are property disputes between respondent Nos.2 and 3 on one hand and accused Nos.1 to 4 on the other. Originally respondent No.3 is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.0.56 cents out of Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.No.56-3D on the accounts of Thumba, Bangarupalem Mandal, having acquired the same under a registered Gift Deed vide Doc.No.1499/2017, dated 20.11.2017 from his father P. Nagabhushanam and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. (b) There are toms, Mango and coconut trees in the said land and respondent No.2 has been looking after the said land, as per the directions of respondent No.3. As Accused No.1 has been claiming right over the said land, respondent No.3 filed OS No.621 of 2017 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and the same is pending. While so, on 11.06.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 4 criminally trespassed into the Mango Garden of respondent No.3, committed theft of Mangoes, lodged them in Tractor and Trailer Bearing Nos.AP-04-B-6101 and AP-04-B-6102 for transporting them illegally for unlawful gain. On coming to know about the same, when respondent No.2 came there and questioned the accused Nos.1 to 4 about their illegal acts, they threatened him with dire consequences and abused in filthy language. (c) Inspite of the advice of the elders that they will settle the issue on the next day morning and asked the accused to leave the mango load, accused Nos.1 to 4 did not heed to them, took away the mangoes and disposed the same. Again on the same night, the accused committed theft of Mangoes for second time. (c) Inspite of the advice of the elders that they will settle the issue on the next day morning and asked the accused to leave the mango load, accused Nos.1 to 4 did not heed to them, took away the mangoes and disposed the same. Again on the same night, the accused committed theft of Mangoes for second time. (d) On 12.06.2019 at about 08.00 a.m., on coming to know about the above incident, when respondent No.2 and his relatives questioned the accused, all the accused got enraged, abused them in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences that they will do away with their lives, if they object them for transporting the stolen mangoes. Accused Nos.1 to 4 caused loss to the tune of Rs.1 lakh to respondent Nos.2 and 3. (e) On the report lodged by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.77 of 2019 of Bangarupalem Police Station, was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 447, 379 and 506 read with 34 IPC. (f) After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet which was numbered as CC No.1822 of 2019 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. (g) Seeking quashment of the CC the present Crl. P is filed. Grounds sought for quashment : 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them, on the following grounds: (a) Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint, without possession, valid document and right over the said land. (b) Respondent No.3 has been claiming the property without any valid document and possession. (c) The brother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely Ponne Devendraiah lodged a similar complaint against accused No.1 in FIR No.131 of 2017 of Bangarupalem Police Station and the same was stayed by this Court. (d) Respondent No.3 created the alleged registered Gift Deed without there being any such land and possession over the same and obtained ROR records such as e-Pass Book and 1B Account and based on the said documents, obtained temporary injunction against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the non-existing land. (d) Respondent No.3 created the alleged registered Gift Deed without there being any such land and possession over the same and obtained ROR records such as e-Pass Book and 1B Account and based on the said documents, obtained temporary injunction against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the non-existing land. (e) Subsequently, the temporary injunction granted in IA No.616 of 2017 was vacated and the same was dismissed with a finding that the Sy.No.56/3D and the land of Ac.0.76 cents are not in existence in the name of respondent No.3 and e-Passbook, 1B Account and ROR records relating to the said land were cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor vide proceedings in D.Dis.G/3401/2018, dated 07.02.2019. The appeal filed by respondent No.3 in CMA No.15 of 2018 was also dismissed. (f) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the accused in various criminal cases filed by petitioner No.1 herein. As a counter blast to the cases filed by accused No.1 herein, with the support of respondent No.1/Police, respondent No.2 filed false cases against the petitioners herein, by falsely implicating them. (g) Accused No.1 made a complaint against the S.I. of Police, to the higher authorities for registering false cases against him and the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor had issued a charge-memo dated 21.06.2018 to the-then S.I. of Police. (h) On 10.03.2018 at 10.30 a.m., respondent Nos.2 and 3 alongwith others came to the land of petitioners, removed stone pillars and committed theft of fencing wire, for which petitioner No.1 herein lodged a Police complaint in FIR No.47 of 2018 and the same was, in collusion with respondent Nos.2 and 3, referred as false. As such, petitioner No.1 filed a protest petition CFR No.3684 of 2018 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and others and same was numbered as CC No.1517 of 2019. (i) Petitioner No.1 also filed various cases against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and others for their illegal acts the same were numbered as CC Nos.395 of 2019, 1518 of 2019 and 1519 of 2019. (j) Petitioners 1 to 3 herein are the absolute owners of the subject land having obtained Passbooks, 1B Form and 10(1) Adangals. (k) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are in the habit of implicating the petitioners falsely, out of grudge against them. (l) There are no ingredients for the alleged offences against the petitioners and hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. (k) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are in the habit of implicating the petitioners falsely, out of grudge against them. (l) There are no ingredients for the alleged offences against the petitioners and hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S. Varadarajulu Chetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S. Ganesh Babu, learned Counsel representing Ms. S. Parineeta, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent No.1 is in attendance. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are civil disputes between the parties and only with a mala fide intention, false case has been foisted against the petitioners. In fact, the complainant has no land in the Survey No.56/3D and they have created the document as if that property was settled in their favour. It is submitted that in Sy.No.56/3, the petitioners have land of an extent of Ac.1.09 cents. Learned Counsel would submit that respondent No.3 filed a suit in OS No.621 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction and obtained ex parte order of injunction and later, on contest, the same was vacated and thereafter, the suit was also dismissed for default. It is further submitted that, in the meanwhile, the complainant got mutated their names in the Revenue Records. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner No.1 filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer to set aside the entries in the Revenue Records. Learned Counsel would further submit that, without proper investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet mechanically. Learned Senior Counsel finally would submit that petitioner No.1 also filed various cases against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and others for their illegal acts the same were numbered as CC Nos.395 of 2019, 1518 of 2019 and 1519 of 2019. The present complaint has been lodged with false and untenable allegations, as a counter blast to the complaints lodged by the petitioner No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court. 6. The present complaint has been lodged with false and untenable allegations, as a counter blast to the complaints lodged by the petitioner No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that petitioner No.1 lodged series of cases against him and respondent No.3 i.e., 14 cases and every case was referred by the Police as "mistake of fact". It is submitted that the cases were also registered based on the protest petitions. Learned Counsel would further submit that, OS No.621 of 2017 has been restored to file and the same is pending. It is further submitted that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is pending before the Joint Collector. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit that petitioner No.1 purchased the land of an extent of Ac.1.09 cents from the father of respondent No.2 out of Acs.3.08 cents. Learned Counsel would submit that the land is there in Sy.No.56/3D. OS No.822 of 2020 which was filed by petitioner No.1 wherein, they have challenged the declaration that the gift deed executed by the father of respondent No.2 in his favour relating to Sy.No.56/3D is void. Learned Counsel would further submit that there is no dispute about purchase of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.56/3A by the petitioner No.1 vide Registered Sale Deed, but the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2, committed theft of Mangoes and criminally intimidated. Learned Counsel would submit that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.1822 of 2019 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor? Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter-XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the present case, it is the contention of the petitioners that the present complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2, committed theft of Mangoes and criminally intimidated. Whereas, respondent No.3 herein filed OS No.621 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction in IA No.616 of 2017 in the said suit against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein. Whereas, respondent No.3 herein filed OS No.621 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction in IA No.616 of 2017 in the said suit against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 filed counter and written statement and on contest, the temporary injunction granted in IA No.616 of 2017 was vacated and the petition was dismissed on 09.10.2018 with a finding that respondent No.3 herein had failed to establish prima facie case and the contention of the petitioner is not supported by the documents filed by him. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, in his proceedings in D.Dis.G/3401/2018, dated 07.02.2019 stated that the-then Tahsildar, Bangarupalem has issued Pattadar Passbook/Title deed in favour of respondent No.3 herein without following the procedure laid down under R.O.R. Act and also without conducting proper enquiry in the Village and hence, the entries made in web land and in the PPB/TD of respondent No.3 vide Khata No.568 of 1B Khata Thumba Village against the Sy.No.56/3D are hereby cancelled and further, according to the documents produced by petitioner No.1 herein, he is entitled to the land of an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.56/3 of Thumba Village and the Tahsildar is also directed to incorporate necessary changes in the Village and Mandal Accounts. 11. Further, respondent No.3 has been claiming that he is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.0.56 cents out of Ac.0.76 cents in Sy.No.56-3D on the accounts of Thumba, Bangarupalem Mandal, having acquired the same under a registered Gift Deed vide Doc.No.1499/2017, dated 20.11.2017 from his father P. Nagabhushanam and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and there are toms, Mango and coconut trees in the said land and respondent No.2 has been looking after the said land, as per the directions of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 filed OS No.621 of 2017 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and the same is pending. 12. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. Para No.12 reads as follows : "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. Para No.12 reads as follows : "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. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court." (Emphasis supplied) 13. Later this decision was relied on in Usha Chakraborty and another v. State of West Bengal and another, 2023 SCC Online SC 90 and Naresh Kumar and another v. State of Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196 , by the Apex Court and by this Court in Challa Jaya Shankar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 381; S. Venkata Naga Kishore v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1089; Syed Shameer v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4072; M. Venkata Narasaiah Setty v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1090 and G. Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 908. 14. In the instant case, the entire dispute revolves round the subject property and there involves the dispute of title and possession over the subject land. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and respondent Nos.2 and 3 resorted to criminal prosecution against the petitioners by inviting the Police to be interfered with the civil litigation. It is the claim of the petitioners that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Admittedly there are civil disputes pending between the parties and there is a cloud over the title of the subject property. The proceedings issued by the R.D.O., also discloses that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the property. It is the claim of the petitioners that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Admittedly there are civil disputes pending between the parties and there is a cloud over the title of the subject property. The proceedings issued by the R.D.O., also discloses that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the property. When his possession is being protected by the order of R.D.O., the question of the criminal trespass by the petitioners into the subject land and the commission of consequential offences, as alleged in the complaint, does not arise. Prima facie view of the allegations do not reveal case being made out against the petitioners for the offence alleged. Therefore, it can be said that the allegations mentioned in the complaint are baseless and are not tenable. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the commission of the offences alleged against them. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4. 16. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.1822 of 2019 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor for the offence under Sections 447, 379 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.