Telangana High Court
Singarapu Yellaiah, vs Katicuri Rajamallaiah, on 15 July, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.P.No.11325 OF 2013
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-12 in C.C.No.266 of 2011, on the file of the III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the record.
3. The second respondent filed a complaint against petitioners/ A-1 to A-12 before police alleging that he has taken the agricultural land an extent of Acs.1-20 Gts., in Sy.No.75 of Allipuram Village belonging to Poshala Sadanandam on lease. On 02.06.2011 at about 04:00 pm, when the complainant and his son were ploughing the land, the petitioners/A-1 to A-12 illegally trespassed into the land and damaged the fencing wire and pillars fixed around the land, thereby causing damage to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. Based on the above complaint, the police registered 2 a case in Cr.No.61 of 2011 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet in C.C.No.266 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC against A-1 to A-12. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed present criminal petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant is neither connected with the land in question nor has he taken the same in question on lease from Mr.Poshala Sadanandam and cultivating the same. The petitioners herein have not interfered with the said land and caused damage to the fencing poles and wire as alleged. He further contends that originally one Kallepalli Chandraiah was the original owner of the land in question and the after his death, the said property devolved to the vendors of Mrs. Macharla Rajyalaxmi, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed.
5. Learned counsel further contends that the first petitioner and his family members are working in the land of Mrs.Rajyalaxmi on sharing basis and while so, one Poshala Sadanandam and others have started interfering with the possession of the first petitioner 3 and his family members, for which the said Mrs.Rajyalaxmi filed a suit in O.S.No.222 of 2011 before the II-Junior Civil Judge, Waragnal for permanent injunction restraining Poshala Sadanandam and others from interfering with her possession and also obtained interim injunction. Therefore, from the above it is clear that neither the complainant nor the said Poshala Sadanandam are the owners of the land. The allegations made in the complaint are false and he prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-12.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that earlier the first respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging that on 26.02.2011, the petitioners/A-3, A-4 and four others have damaged the borewell dug in respect of the property in question and that the said property was given to him as Pasupu Kumkuma and he is in possession of the same since 40 years. Based on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The first respondent/complainant made contradictory statement in the present complaint that has taken 4 the land in question on lease from Mr.Poshala Sadanandam and cultivating the same.
7. Learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant contends that the allegations in the complaint satisfy the ingredients of the offence alleged. A perusal of statements of the witnesses, coupled with the allegations in the complaint prima facie goes to show that the case against the petitioners can be proceeded with. There are no justifiable grounds to allow the criminal petition and prays for dismissing the criminal petition.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the second respondent/State contends that the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable in nature and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be ascertained only after full-fledged trial. She prays for dismissing the criminal petition.
9. The prosecution case is that while the second respondent along with his son was cultivating the land, the petitioners illegally trespassed into the land and damaged the fencing wire and pillars fixed around it and thereby caused damage to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. 5
10. To constitute the offence of criminal trespass under Section 441 IPC, there must be unauthorized 'entry', or if the entry has been lawfully and legitimately obtained, there must be unlawful 'remaining', either directly or constructively, against the will of the person in possession. In either case, the unlawful entry, or unlawful remaining, must be with an intent to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult, or annoy, any person in possession of the property. Section 447 prescribes the punishment for criminal trespass.
11. The allegations in the charge sheet and complaint reveal that while the complainant along with his son was cultivating the land, the petitioners criminally trespassed in the land. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that neither Mr.Poshala Sadanandam is the owner of the land nor is the second respondent cultivating the same as a lease holder. It is his further contention that one Mrs.Macharla Rajyalaxmi is the owner of the land in question and, in fact, while the first petitioner and his family members are cultivating the land on sharing basis, Mr.Poshala Sadanandam and others have started interfering with the possession 6 of the first petitioner and his family members and the said Mrs.Rajyalaxmi filed a suit in O.S.No.222 of 2011 for permanent injunction restraining Poshala Sadanandam and others from interfering with her possession and obtained interim injunction on 08.03.2011 for the land in question where the incident took place.
12. In support of their case, the petitioners filed documents i.e., copy of suit filed by Mrs.Rajyalaxmi in O.S.No.222 of 2011, copy of interim injunction order dated 08.03.2011 and also copies of pahanies to show that Mr.Poshala Sadanandam is not in possession of the land in question where the alleged incident had taken place. It is to be noted that the alleged incident took place on 02.06.2011 and interim injunction was granted by the court in 08.03.2011, which is very much prior to taking place of the alleged incident. Admittedly, the complainant is not the owner of the land and the allegation that Mr.Poshala Sadanandam is the owner and the complainant is the leaseholder of the land in question appears to be incorrect. As such, the complainant is not aggrieved person. Apart from the above, the pahanies for the years 1990-91, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2008-09 also show the names of first petitioner, 7 father of second petitioner and father of sixth petitioner and others in the possessor column in respect of Sy.No.75. All the above contentions of the petitioners fortify the fact that the petitioners were cultivating the land in question on sharing basis and even if the petitioners have entered into the land as alleged by the first respondent, the same is not an unauthorized entry. There is no necessity for them to damage the fencing wire and poles. In addition to the above, the petitioners did not commit any offence, or intimidate, insult, or annoy, any person in possession of the property. In fact, the person who is allegedly in possession of the subject land is not proved to be in possession and an aggrieved person having any right over the land where the incident took place.
13. Even if the allegations contained in FIR/complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. Moreover, the allegations in the charge sheet and complaint/FIR do not constitute any of the cognizable offences and permitting the proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of law. 8
14. Hence, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be driving them to face prosecution and it would certainly amount to harassment to the petitioners to undergo the rigour of trial. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 to A-12.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-12 in C.C.No.266 of 2011, on the file of the III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal, are hereby quashed.
16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 15.07.2022 Lrkm