Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Addala Srinivas vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 October, 2024
APHC010076332022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1206/2022
Between:
1. ADDALA SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE BENNAYYA AGED 45 YEARS, OCC-
EMPLOYEE R/O. D.NO.6-22-7/68, EAST COURT APTS, EAST POINT
COLONY, CHINA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM
2. NADIMPALLI VENKATA RAJU,, S/O. LATE SURAPU RAJU, AGED 52
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-220, JUVVALAPALEM, KALLA MANDAL,
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI.
2. POTHUREDDY SITARAMAIAH, S/O.LATE VENKATA SUBBARAO
AGED 65 YEAR, R/O. D.NO.10-323, CHALAPATHINAGAR, OLD
DAIRY FORM, CHINAGADILI, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. V V SATISH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 6, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Land Grabbing Court, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code2 and Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Land Grabbing Act3.
2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri E.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.4 and 6. It is alleged that Accused Nos.2 and 3 entered into development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioners and that they have made construction over the subject land. Learned counsel would further submit that the case of the Complainant is that Accused No.1 sold the subject site to the vendor's vendor of Respondent No.2 in the year 1989 and thereafter, the vendor Respondent No.2 purchased the same in the year 2000 and then Respondent No.2 purchased the said property in the year 2005 under a Registered Sale Deed. Learned counsel would further submit that the Sale Deed which was executed 1 For short 'Cr.P.C' 2 For short 'IPC' 3 for short 'the Act' 3 without having title, cannot be treated as a forged one. That apart, prima facie no case is made out against the Petitioners, who are nothing to do with the alleged forgery or grabbing of the land, to attract the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
(ii) Learned counsel for the Petitioners further would submit that the question of trespass, mischief and threatening the Complainant also does not arise in case of the present Petitioners for the reason that, by virtue of Development Agreement, Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 6 entered the premises and started construction. It is not the case that, with a criminal intention, the Petitioners entered the premises or stayed therein with an intention to commit any criminal act. Learned counsel would submit that, in the absence of the same, no case is made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offence. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.2 filed a civil suit in O.S.No.532 of 2016, which is pending on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam for recovery of possession. The charge sheet in the present case has been filed after three years of the registration of the crime which is beyond the period of limitation for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B read with 34 IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that, Accused No.1 sold the property to Accused Nos.2 and 3 vide Doc.No.1335/2008 and Accused Nos.2 and 3 in turn entered a Development Agreement-cum-GPA with the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 6 relating to the subject property. The Petitioners are nothing to do with the offence. Learned counsel finally submits that the Police cannot register any 4 case under the provisions of Land Grabbing Act because it is a special statute and the procedure is laid down under the Act and unless the Special Court gives any finding, no Court shall take cognizance of such an offence under the provisions of the Act. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel & Others Vs. State of Gujarat & Another4 and Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another5.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that Respondent No.2 was in possession of the property by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed by which he has purchased the property from Accused No.1 during April, 2015 and he raised the basement and thereafter as he fell ill, he could not pursue the same. When he entered the property, he observed the demolition of such basement and the construction was in progress. Learned counsel further would submit that, as per Section 8 of the Act, there is no embargo to the Police to register the case. He never complained that it is a case of forgery. The alleged incident had taken place on 26.10.2015, the day when Respondent No.2 entered the premises and observed the grabbing of his land by the Petitioners.
5. 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 4 (2020) 3 SCC 794 5 (2009) 8 SCC 751 5 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.
6. At this stage, for better adjudication of the matter, it is apposite to extract Section 8 of the A.P.Land Grabbing Act, which reads as under:
"8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:--
(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;
(1-A) The Special Court shall, for the purpose of taking cognizance of the case, consider the location, or extent or value of the land alleged to have been grabbed or of the substantial nature of the evil involved or in the interest of justice required or any other relevant matter: Provided that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any such case without hearing the petitioner.] (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 3[the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] or in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, (Act 9 of 1972) any case inrespect of an alleged act of land grabbing or the determination of question of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of any land grabbed under this Act, 3 [shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be triable in the Special Court] and the decision of Special Court shall be final.
(2-A) If the Special Court is of the opinion that any case brought before it, is not a fit case to be taken cognizance of, it may return the same for presentation before the Special Tribunal: Provided that if, in the opinion of the Special Court, any application filed before it is prima facie frivolous or vexatious, it shall reject the same without any further enquiry:
6
Provided further that if on an application from an interested person to withdraw and try a case pending before any Special Tribunal the Special Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to be withdrawn and tried by it, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing withdraw any such case from such Special Tribunal and shall deal with it as if the case was originally instituted before the Special Court.
(2-B) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for the Special Court to try all offences punishable under this Act.
(2-C) The Special Court shall determine the order in which the civil and criminal liability against a land grabber be initiated. It shall be within the discretion of the Special Court whether or not to deliver its decision or order until both civil and criminal proceedings are completed. The evidence admitted during the criminal proceeding may be made use of while trying the civil liability. But additional evidence, if any, adduced in the civil proceedings shall not be considered by the Special Court while determining the criminal liability. Any person accused of land grabbing or the abetment thereof before the Special Court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence or oath in disproof of the charge made against him or any person charged together with him in the criminal proceeding:
Provided that he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing or his failure to give evidence shall be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the special court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same proceeding.] (3) ' [ * * *] (4) Every case under sub-section (1) shall be disposed of finally by the Special Court, as far as possible, within a period of six months from the date of institution of the case before it. (5) * * * (6) Every finding of the Special Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land 3[* * *] 4 [Provided that the Special Court shall, by notification specify the fact of taking cognizance of the case under this Act. Such notification shall state that any objection which may be received by the Special Court from any person including the custodian of evacuee property within the period specified therein will be considered by it; Provided further that where the custodian of evacuee property objects to the Special Court taking cognizance of the case, the Special Court shall not proceed further 7 with the case in regard to such property; Provided also that the Special Court shall cause a notice of taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary enquiry to satisfy it self about the persons likely to be interested in the land. (7) It shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass such order as it may deem fit to advance the cause of justice. It may award compensation in terms of money for wrongful possession of the land grabbed which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to the market value of the land grabbed as on the date of the order and profits accrued from the land payable by the land grabber to the owner of the grabbed land and may direct re-delivery of the grabbed land to its rightful( owner. The amount of compensation and profits, so awarded and costs of re-delivery, if any, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue in case the Government is the owner, or as a decree of a civil Court, in any other case to be executed by the Special Court:
Provided that the Special Court shall, before passing an order under this sub-section, give to the land grabber an opportunity of making his representation or of adducing evidence, if any, in this regard, and consider such representation and evidence.] (8) Any case, pending before any court or other authority immediately before the constitution of a Special Court, as would have been within the jurisdiction of such Special Court, shall stand transferred to the Special Court2 [ * * * ] as if the cause of action on which such suit or proceeding is based had arisen after the constitution of the Special Court."
7. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Courts as per Section 7 of the Act and to try the case arising out of any allegation of land grabbing and unless there is a specific finding regarding the offence of land grabbing as mentioned in Section 8 of the Act, the proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act would not lie. That apart, Section 12 of the Act is clear to the effect that it prescribes taking cognizance of the offence with the previous sanction of the Special Tribunal. In that view, there is some force in the contention of the Petitioners. 8
8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that it is not a case of forgery. So, the discussion regarding the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC is not required for the purpose of present petition.
9. As far as the offence under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC is concerned, Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 6 entered the subject premises by virtue of a Development Agreement-cum-GPA which was executed by Accused Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, civil suit is pending between the parties, which was filed by Respondent No.2 even in the year 2016 seeking recovery of possession. It clearly demonstrates that the Petitioners are in possession of the subject land and they entered the premises and they were in the process of construction of the building. In that view, in absence of any ingredients to attract the offence of trespass when the possession of the Petitioner over the land is a legal one, the offence under Sections 447, 427 and the rest of the consequential offences have no application to the facts of the present case.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussion and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others6 at paras 102 and 103, the allegations made against the Petitioners, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against them and accordingly, this Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6 AIR 1992 SC 604 9
11. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 6 in C.C.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Land Grabbing Court, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Land Grabbing Act, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:25.10.2024 Dinesh 10 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.1206 of 2022 Dt.25.10.2024 Dinesh