Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 414 (AP)

S. K. Vali v. State of A. P.

2024-04-02

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
ORDER : 1. 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 and 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No. 109 of 2020 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Guntur District registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 434 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “IPC”]. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed the present complaint against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that Petitioners and others have illegally trespassed into the land to a total extent of Ac. 5.44 cents in different survey numbers at Akurajupalli Village, Thurkapalli Village, Machavaram Layout No. 2 and Tadatla Village of Guntur District. It is further alleged that in the said lands, the Government of A.P. is going to allot house site pattas under “Navarathnalu” programme and the Petitioners and others have removed the stones in the said lands. Petitioners have filed a case before this Court and Respondent No. 2 did not receive any orders from the Court. Based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, the present case in Crime No. 109 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 447 and 434 read with 34 IPC against the Petitioners. 3. Being aggrieved thereby, Petitioners filed the present petition seeking quashment of proceedings against them, on the following grounds: (a) Though Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were informed about the orders passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 10037 and 10165 of 2020 by the Petitioners, the present complaint was filed disobeying the orders of this Court. Hence, Petitioners have filed Contempt Case against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the same is pending for adjudication. (b) Respondent No. 2 by misusing his official powers and with the support of Respondent No. 1 has installed the stones in Petitioners’ land without there being any valid evidence. (c) The present criminal case was foisted against the Petitioners only with a view to harass them, which is nothing but misuse of powers and exercising of powers not vested with them. (d) Without following due process of law, and without obeying the orders of this Court, none of the Respondents have any power of jurisdiction to interfere with the possession of the Petitioners. (d) Without following due process of law, and without obeying the orders of this Court, none of the Respondents have any power of jurisdiction to interfere with the possession of the Petitioners. (e) The Police out of their anxiety to appease Respondent No. 2, have registered the case against the Petitioners though no provisions of law are attracted. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Kota Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that the Petitioner No. 2 is the absolute owner and has been in possession of the subject property, which was inherited from his father. He has been paying land revenue to the Government. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are aware of the orders passed by this Court, falsely registered the present case against the Petitioners without following due process of law as directed in W.P. Nos. 10037 and 10165 of 2020. As such, Petitioners filed contempt case against the Respondents and the same is pending for adjudication. The present case has been foisted with a view to harass the Petitioners. The provisions of law under which the crime is registered are not attracted to the facts of the case. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 6. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the 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 of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 109 of 2020 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Guntur District? Determination by the Court 8. 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 and 2 in Crime No. 109 of 2020 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Guntur District? 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. 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. (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. (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. It is alleged in the complaint lodged in the present case that Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and others have illegally trespassed into the subject property while the Government of A.P was going to allot house site pattas under “Navarathnalu” programme and they also removed the stones in the said lands. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that they are the owners of the said property and have been in possession of the said property. The Petitioners filed copies of the Pattadar Passbooks, Title Deed books, Adangal Pahanis etc. which establish that they are the absolute owners of the respective properties. When the Government tried to acquire the property of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 under Navarathnalu Programme, they got issued a legal notice to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 informing about filing of W.P. Nos. 4469 and 4470 of 2020 and passing of orders by this Court based on the written instructions submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are well aware of the orders passed by this Court. Instead of obeying the same, when Respondent No. 2 with the support of Respondent No. 1 installed the stones in the land of the Petitioners, the same was questioned by the Petitioners by way of filing W.P. Nos. 10037 and 10165 of 2020, wherein, this Court passed interim orders to follow during process of law. As the Respondents disobeyed the said orders, the Petitioners have filed contempt cases against the Respondents and the same are pending for adjudication. 11. 10037 and 10165 of 2020, wherein, this Court passed interim orders to follow during process of law. As the Respondents disobeyed the said orders, the Petitioners have filed contempt cases against the Respondents and the same are pending for adjudication. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it can be held that the Petitioners are the owners of the subject property and they have been in possession of the same. If such is the case, the question of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC and the consequence offence under Section 434 IPC alleged to have been committed by the Petitioners, does not arise. 12. In view of the above discussion and in view of the first guideline in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 109 of 2020 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Guntur District registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 434 read with 34 IPC. 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.