Telangana High Court
Cheerika Jaipal Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4667 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed U/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.547 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramnnapet.
2. Heard Sri.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/ State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioners herein are accused No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.547 of 2016. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are U/Secs.447, 427 and 188 IPC. The allegations against the petitioners herein are that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir vide Lr.No.A/466/2014 dated 28-01-2014 promulgated 2 proceedings U/Sec.145 Cr.P.C in respect of land admeasuring Ac.43.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 213, 219, 190 and 211 situated at Chittapur Village, basing on the report of Tahsildar, Valigonda, and also SHO report.
4. During the subsistence of the said proceedings, the petitioners herein have trespassed into the said land and committed mischief on 19-02-2016. Therefore, Tahsildar, Valigonda Mandal had lodged a complaint dated 19-02-2016 with Police, Valigonda who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.12/2016 against the petitioners herein for the above offences. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein.
5. Sri.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner herein/accused No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the Agricultural land including Mango Garden admeasuring 3 Ac.21.07 guntas in Sy.Nos.204, 208, 210, 212, 202, 205, 209, 211, 190, 207 of Chittapur Village, Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, when Smt.C.Vanitha Rani and others interfered with his possession, he has filed O.S.No.151 of 2015 against them for perpetual injunction. Along with said suit, he had also filed an Injunction Petition seeking interim injunction vide I.A.No.230 of 2015 on the file of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir, who granted interim injunction restraining the said Smt.Ch.Vanitha Rani and others from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner herein over the suit schedule property in O.S.No.151 of 2015. The said injunction is subsisting and the said suit is also pending, even then, the Revenue Department Officials in collusion with the defendants in the said suit violated the said Order and therefore, the first petitioner herein has filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.8759 of 2016. This Court vide Order dated 25-04-2016 in W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2016 in W.P.No.8759 of 2016 directed the Revenue Authorities to be 4 mindful of the Injunction granted by the Court below and not to act in violation thereof or assist anyone who seeks to act in violation thereof. The said Writ Petition is pending.
6. Referring to the same, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the contents of the Charge Sheet lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein.
7. The second respondent in collusion with the defendants in the said suit implicated the petitioners herein. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.547 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramnnapet.
8. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there are 5 specific allegations that they have criminally trespassed into the above said subject land violating the proceedings issued by the third respondent U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C. vide Lr.No.A/466/2014 dated 28-01-2014. To the said suit the respondents No.2 and 3 are not parties. This Court vide Order dated 25-04-2016 in W.P.M.P.No.11096 of 2016 in W.P.No.8759 of 2016 directed the Revenue Authorities to be mindful of the Injunction granted by the Court below and not to act in violation thereof or assist anyone who seeks to act in violation thereof. The suit is pending. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners herein have trespassed into the subject property damaged the Agricultural land with the help of JCB. With the said submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petition.
9. Perusal of the record would reveal that the third respondent vide Lr.No.A/466/2014 dated 28-01-2014 promulgated proceedings U/Sec.145 Cr.P.C in respect of land 6 admeasuring Ac.43.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 213, 219, 190 and 211 situated at Chittapur Village, basing on the report of second respondent, and also on the report of SHO, Valigonda Police Station, between petitioners and the defendants in the above said suit in O.S.No.151 of 2015 the above said subject property. Since there was law and order problem, the third respondent promulgated proceedings U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C. It is also relevant to note that the first petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.151 of 2015 against Smt.Ch.Vanitha Rani and others for perpetual injunction. He has also filed an Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction vide I.A.No.230 of 2015. The learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir, has granted interim injunction in favour of first petitioner herein. According to the learned Senior Counsel the said Injunction is subsisting as on today.
7
10. It is relevant to note that the petitioners herein claiming to be the owners of the suit schedule property which is part of the subject property has not filed any application U/Sec.145 (5) Cr.P.C with the third respondent claiming that they are the owners of the subject property, there is an injunction in their favour and therefore, the Orders of Promulgation U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C dated 28-01-2014 have to be stayed or cancelled.
11. A perusal of record would reveal that vide Notice dated 25-10-2014, the third respondent has requested the petitioners and the defendant in the said suit to attend enquiry. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners herein could not attend the said enquiry and the said Orders U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C are pending. The third respondent has not taking up the proceedings. However, whatever may be the reason, the said Orders of Promulgation U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C dated 28-01-2014 passed by the third respondent are subsisting. 8 The claim of the parties have to be decided by the Competent Jurisdictional Civil Court. Since there is Law and Order problem, the third respondent has Promulgated Orders U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they have to file petition U/Sec.145 (5) Cr.P.C with the third respondent along with supporting documents to establish their title and prima faice possession over the subject property, it is for the third respondent to decide. They have not requested the third respondent to stay or cancel the said proceedings dated 28-01-2014.
12. The allegations against the petitioners herein are that during the subsistence of the said Promulgation Orders U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners herein have trespassed into the subject land, damaged the Agricultural land with the help of JCB on 28-01-2016. Therefore the second respondent has lodged a complaint with Police, Valigonda who in turn 9 registered a case and after investigation laid Charge Sheet against the petitioner herein.
13. The above said facts would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioners and the defendants in the above said suit, with regard to the subject property and the said suit in O.S.No.151 of 2015 is pending. The Promulgation Orders by the third respondent U/Sec.145 of Cr.P.C dated 28-01-2014 are also subsisting as on today. Thus there are triable issues to be considered by the trial Court in C.C.No.547 of 2016.
14. This Court cannot consider the defences of the petitioners in a petition filed U/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.547 of 2016 against the petitioners herein.
15. However, with regard to the offence U/Sec.188 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, Section 188 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
10
188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple impris-
onment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
16. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District1 relying on various judgments including the judgment in N.T. Rama Rao1 and also guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal 1 . Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016 11 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 remedy to redress the grievance of the party, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held that the proceedings in the said C.C. No.13 of 2016 were quashed by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.
17. In view of the above discussion, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.547 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at 12 Ramnnapet, are hereby quashed in so far as Section 188 of Indian Penal Code is concerned.
18. The other offences U/Secs.447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. Therefore, the proceedings with regard to above two offences may go on. Considering the fact that the Calendar case is of the year 2016, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose off the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
19. With the above directions, this Criminal Petition is disposed off.
As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Dated: 04th April, 2022 KHRM 13 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4667 OF 2021 4th April, 2022 KHRM