Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 395 (AP)

G. Satyanarayana v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-03-26

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.48 of 2020 on the file of New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code,1860[for short ‘IPC’]. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: a. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint against the Petitioner alleging that one Maturi Lakshmi submitted a representation to him stating that the Petitioner/Accused created fake documents in respect of the land in Sy.No.82 and sold to Lingala Ravanamma in the year 2013 and obtained patta under G.O.No.301. She further stated that basing on her complaint, Zonal Commissioner, Gajuwaka informed that the D.No.14-9-4/2 belongs to cement shop in front of Marvel School, BC Road but does not belong to shed. b. She further stated that the Petitioner/Accused misled the Revenue Authorities and obtained regularization proceedings under G.O.No.301 and requested to cancel the patta issued to the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner/Accused was called for his explanation by sending notice, he did not submit his explanation within the prescribed period. c. As per the recommendation of the Village Revenue Officer, Respondent No.2 submitted a proposal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam with a recommendation to cancel the regularization proceedings in Rc.No.823/2016/A, dated 12.10.2018 issued to the Petitioner/Accused and filed the present complaint to take necessary action against the Petitioner. Grounds for quashment: 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against him, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds: a. Petitioner/Accused is the title holder and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land admeasuring 1572 square yards in Sy.No.82 of Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. b. Petitioner along with one B.Subba Rao have been granted Ryotwari pattas in 1985 in accordance with Section 4 of A.P.Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 and in tune with Rule 7, the Ryotwari patta was granted to each of them on 21.11.1985. Thereafter, the Municipal Authorities have granted permission for layout and for construction of residential buildings. b. Petitioner along with one B.Subba Rao have been granted Ryotwari pattas in 1985 in accordance with Section 4 of A.P.Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 and in tune with Rule 7, the Ryotwari patta was granted to each of them on 21.11.1985. Thereafter, the Municipal Authorities have granted permission for layout and for construction of residential buildings. c. It is stated that the Special Deputy Tahsildar(Inams), Visakhapatnam issued proceedings dated 30.11.1978 after conducting suo-moto enquiry, wherein, a patta was granted to the tenant to an extent of Ac.8.99 cents. It is a patta land. Respondent No.1, on the instructions of R.D.O and collector had issued proceedings on 06.07.2013 stating that the subject property is a Government land. d. The R.D.O and the Collector, after conducting enquiry, declared that the possession of various properties in Sy.No.82 particularly the share of 1572 square yards is a patta land. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings directing the Petitioner/Accused to appear for enquiry and for verification of documents on 16.07.2014. The land in Sy.No.82, which is situated in Gajuwaka Village is a Government land. Till the disposal of W.P.No.6689 of 2003, the land in Sy.No.82 of Gajuwaka Village will be treated as “No Man Land”. e. Petitioner/Accused was being threatened to be dispossessed from his properties situated in Sy.No.82. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner/Accused filed W.P.No.23959 of 2014 before this Court, wherein, directions have been given to maintain status-quo by both sides relating to survey of land in Sy.No.82. f. It is further stated that Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 on 25.06.2019 to deputy staff for conducting the survey. The said letter discloses that Maturi Lakshmi had purchased 600 square yards of vacant site in Sy.No.82 from one Nalamati Dorayya in the year 1991. g. On 31.05.2019 P.Ramarao and his workers entered into the site and destroyed the bushes. Thereupon, a case in Crime No.309 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 IPC was registered. The letter dated 25.06.2019 further disclosed that Maturi Lakshmi lodged another complaint with the Police stating that her grandfather Vanga Jaganayakulu had a site of Ac.9.22 cents in Sy.No.82 of Gajuwaka Mandal. h. Out of the said property, the property to an extent of Ac.8.99 cents was entrusted to his children P.Williams, P.Prasad James and Hemalatha on 30.11.1978 and the remaining Ac.0.23 cents to Inamdar. h. Out of the said property, the property to an extent of Ac.8.99 cents was entrusted to his children P.Williams, P.Prasad James and Hemalatha on 30.11.1978 and the remaining Ac.0.23 cents to Inamdar. The mother of Maturi Lakshmi acquired Ac.3.00 cents of land towards her share. The Revenue Authorities issued pattas to Nallamati Dorayya, Petitioner herein and Godavarthi Ramakrishna to an extent of 1572 square yards each. i. SHO, Gajuwaka requested Respondent No.2 to conduct survey in Sy.No.82 of Gajuwaka Mandal. It is further stated that Police, without having any power, sent such letter to the Tahsildar. Hence, the said proceedings of Respondent No.2 were challenged by the Petitioner/Accused in W.P.No.17127 of 2019 before this Court. j. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 19.08.2019 directing Respondent No.1 to take criminal action against the Petitioner herein and Nalamati Dorayya for producing fake pattas. Pursuant to the proceedings of Respondent No.2, Police registered a case in Crime No.500 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (g) and 3(2) (va) of the Act of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. k. After completion of investigation therein, Respondent No.1 filed charge sheet against the Petitioner herein and others for the offence under Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as no prima facie case was made under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with 34 IPC. Petitioner herein filed Crl.P.No.948 of 2020 seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in the said crime. To the surprise of the Petitioner herein, the present crime has been registered for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. l. It is further urged that the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not satisfy the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Petitioner has valid documents to prove his possession and title over the subject property. Even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value, they are civil in nature and Respondent No.2 ought to have taken civil action regarding the same. The Complainant attempted to give a cloak of criminal offence to a civil dispute. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. The Complainant attempted to give a cloak of criminal offence to a civil dispute. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioner/Accused and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1. Though notice was served, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that, no mens rea can be attributed to the Petitioner to commit the alleged offences. The necessary ingredients of the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC are absent in the present complaint and hence, they cannot be sustained in law. He would further submit that the entire allegations would reveal that the matter is of civil nature and hence, initiation of criminal proceedings is a clear abuse of process of law. The Complainant is trying to give a cloak of criminal offence to the civil dispute. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgments of Hon?ble Apex Court in Mahmood Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, Vesa Holdings Private Limited and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2015) 8 SCC 293 , Usha Chakraborthy and another Vs. State of West Bengal and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , Joseph Salvaraja Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2011) 7 SCC 59 , Prof.R.K.Vijayasaraty and another Vs. Sudha Seetharam and another, (2019) 16 SCC 739 , G.Sagar Suri and others Vs. State of U.P and others, MANU/SC/0045/2000, T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 , Tarak Dash Mukharjee and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2121, Krishna Lal Chawla and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 5 SCC 435 and Parwez Samuel Koul and Others Vs. U.T of J & K and others, MANU/JK/0070/2023. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations, which would attract the alleged offence, against the Petitioner and that there would be no reason for interference of this Court. She would further submit that the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage and prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition. Point for determination 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations, which would attract the alleged offence, against the Petitioner and that there would be no reason for interference of this Court. She would further submit that the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage and prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition. 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 proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.48 of 2020 on the file of New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC? 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. In the case on hand, it is the case of Respondent No.2/Complainant that, the Petitioner/Accused has misled the Revenue Authorities by submitting a wrong door number and obtained proceedings of regularization under G.O.No.301 and thereby committed the alleged offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 10. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he is the title holder of the subject property. Perusal of the record shows that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.301, Revenue (ASSN.I) Department, dated 05.07.2016 regularizing the subject land along with other lands and Respondent No.2, pursuant to the said G.O., issued proceedings in Rc.No.823/2016/A, dated 12.10.2018 by regularizing the land of the Petitioner. However, Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint alleging that the Petitioner by misleading the Revenue Authorities, had obtained the regularization proceedings. However, Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint alleging that the Petitioner by misleading the Revenue Authorities, had obtained the regularization proceedings. Even if the complaint allegations are taken into consideration, one cannot conclude prima facie that the petitioner/Accused has committed the alleged offence. Since, when the Respondent No.2 is contending that the regularization is not correct and to cancel the patta issued to the Petitioner/Accused, he has to take necessary steps in accordance with law, but not by way of filing criminal complaint. 11. There is absolutely no material in the complaint showing the commission of any offence much less the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC by the Petitioner/Accused. The criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2 are nothing but an abuse of process of law. As observed by the Hon?ble Apex Court in several judgments where the ingredients of certain offences were not made out in the F.I.R/complaint, such criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the foregoing discussion, 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 Petitioner/Accused. However, the Revenue Authorities are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with the governing Rules and Law subject to the litigation pending between the parties. 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.48 of 2020 on the file of New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.