Telangana High Court
Buraga Yesu Babu Burugu Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 30 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10884 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.908 of 2022 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'PDPP Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint stating that the Mandal Girdawar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District, reported that during the inspection of Government lands situated at Survey Nos.342/1, Gajularamam Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, it was identified that three rooms were constructed illegally by few land grabbers and that when the Mandal Girdawar, along with field staff proceeded to the location for removal of encroachments, a local person by name Munnawar/petitioner 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10884 of 2023 No.3 obstructed them from removing the illegal encroachments and also gathered a mob/other petitioners, to cause nuisance. It was reported that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were responsible for the illegal encroachments. Therefore, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 186 of IPC read with Section 3 of PDPP Act. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, vide CC.No.908 of 2022. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt KV.Rajasree, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless and that the ingredients in the charge sheet do not constitute any offence. He contended that the petitioners were in possession of plots and have constructed houses in Survey No.342 of Kaisarnagar, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District, whereunder, several other people also constructed houses in the said survey number 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10884 of 2023 comprising of an area admeasuring 80 square yards. He asserted that the said houses were constructed 10 years ago and that the said plots were shown to the petitioners by elected representatives of the village and that the said land is Government land. He lamented that the petitioners also obtained electricity connection of the same and were regularly paying property tax as well and applied for regularization of their houses under the regularization policy of the Government issued in GO.Ms.Nos.58 and 59 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 30.12.2014.
5. Learned senior counsel for petitioners had incessantly contended that when new set of elected representatives demanded the petitioners to make payments, they refused to do the same, a complaint was made before the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, who in turn, directed the SHO, Dundigal Police Station, to enquire into the same, thereby, a report vide memo No.36/MEMO/CP-CAMP/CYB/2019 dated 22.03.2019 was submitted stating that petitioners were not part of illegal encroachments on the Government land in the limits of Kaisarnagar and that it was the unapproved residential venture where several needy persons purchased the land. 4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.10884 of 2023 Therefore, while advocating that the respondent No.2 has falsely implicated petitioners in the criminal case, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the petitioners are arraigned as accused for the act of trespassing and constructing houses on Government land (Survey Nos. 342/1, Gajularamam Village, Quthbullapur Mandal) with intent to encroach into the same. However, the petitioners contended that the village representatives have shown the subject plots in which they constructed houses 10 years ago, and have been paying property tax and electricity bills therefor. Further, they also applied for regularization 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10884 of 2023 under GO.Ms.Nos.58 and 59, dated 3012.2014. Therefore, trespassing and construction in the subject land with intent to grab Government land may not apply, and Sections 447 and 427 of IPC may not be attracted.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hermareddy 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:
"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 196 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 196 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld"
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In the instant case, a perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 186 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble 1 AIR 1981 SC 1417 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.10884 of 2023 Supreme Court in Hermareddy (supra) it is clear that if the offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 191 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of accused for the other offences. In view of the above, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.908 of 2022 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad Commissionerate, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K.SUJANA, J Date:30.10.2024 PT