Telangana High Court
S. Janaki Ramaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15346 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, arising out of FIR No.150 of 2023, dated 25.02.2023. The offences alleged against petitioner are under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and Section 6 of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short 'the Act, 1905').
2. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed seeking amendment of prayer, which is as follows:
"...may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend FIR No. vide FIR No.241/2023 dated 29.03.2023 on the file of P.S. Jagadgirigutta instead of FIR No.150/2023 which is wrongly typed, in CRL.P.No.15346/2024, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders..."
On 15.04.2025, this Court allowed the Interlocutory Application and accordingly the prayer is amended. 2
JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024
3. Heard Ms. Talat Madiha, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the material on record.
4. On the basis of a written complaint by the Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (for short 'APSFC'), an FIR bearing No.241 of 2023 came to be lodged on 29.03.2023.
5. Gist of the complaint is that APSFC was allotted land admeasuring Ac.238.28 guntas on lease basis for a period of 99 years in Sy.No.307/1 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007. That an extent of land admeasuring Ac.33.11 guntas in Sy.Nos.308/2, 3 and 5 was also alienated by erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh. That local persons i.e., petitioner/accused herein encroached a part of land in Sy.No.307/1 and illegally constructed fencing. That petitioner/accused continued to encroach land in Sy.No.307/1, backside of Gali Pochamma 3 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 temple and constructed fencing, in spite of there being security agency for monitoring.
6. A charge sheet bearing No.27 of 2024 is filed for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC and Section 6 of the Act, 1905. In the charge sheet, it is reflected that after allotment of land admeasuring Ac.238.28 guntas, possession was delivered to APSFC by revenue officials on 20.08.2007 and 14.05.2008, after conducting panchanama. That since then APSFC has been in continuous possession and that accused/petitioner encroached the land in Sy.No.307/1.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused submitted that petitioner is owner of land admeasuring Ac.3.18 guntas in Sy.Nos.335/AA, 336 and 337/A. That the said extent of land was purchased from one Mr. Pagidi Venkat Narsimha Reddy. It is further submitted that vendor was issued Pattedar Passbook bearing No.143442, Title Deed No.26983 and Patta No.193 by Mandal Revenue Officer. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to sale deed (at Page No.22) and contended that it is a registered 4 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 sale deed of his extent of land. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to Page Nos.32, 33 and 34 to 44 to substantiate the claim of petitioner that he is owner of the land.
8. It is contended that one more FIR was registered under the very same Sections i.e., 447 and 427 of IPC and Section 6 of the Act, 1905, as FIR No.150 of 2023 dated 25.02.2023 and that a charge sheet bearing C.C.No.57 of 2024 is filed in the Court of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. It is also submitted that for the very same offences, two FIR's cannot be registered.
9. It is submitted that entire issue revolves around identification and demarcation of property in Sy.Nos.307/1, 335/AA, 336, 337/A. It is further submitted that Section 6 of the Act, 1905, is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as identification and demarcation are not in dispute and that petitioner is not an encroacher, as he purchased under a registered sale deed and pattedar passbook is issued in his name by concerned Revenue Authorities. 5
JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024
10. It is submitted that no notice was issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1905 and petitioner/accused cannot be termed as an encroacher in the absence of any notice. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section 6 of the Act, 1905 and contended that procedure is to be adhered, which is mandatory, before terming the petitioner as an encroacher.
11. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the orders in W.P.No.28832 of 2021, W.P.No.10591 of 2022, Review Petition in W.P.No.10591 of 2022, W.P.No.10592 of 2022, W.P.No.21114 of 2022, FIR No.150 of 2023 and copy of charge sheet (C.C.No.57 of 2024). Order in Crl.P.No.15261 of 2024 was also read out. On the basis of the orders in writ petition, it is contended that the issue is civil in nature and criminal flavor is being given. It is submitted that registering of FIR's for the very same offence is illegal and is an abuse of process of law, if two FIRs for the very same offences are permitted to be on record. Hence, requested to quash the proceedings. 6
JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024
12. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai and other v. State of West Bengal and others 1, Usha Chakraborthy and another v. State of West Bengal and another 2, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others 3, Kunti and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 4 and The Commissioner of Police and others v. Devender Anand and others 5.
13. Basing on the Apex Court judgments, it is submitted that the law laid down in the judgments by Apex Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., two FIR's cannot be registered for the very same set of facts. That when the dispute is civil in nature, a criminal flavor is being added, hence, the criminal petition is liable to be allowed by quashing the proceedings.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-APSFC submitted that survey 1 (2022) 7 SCC 124 2 (2023) 15 SCC 135 3 (2013) 11 SCC 673 4 Crl.A.No.1380 of 2023, dated 03.05.2023 5 Crl.A.No.834 of 2017, dated 08.08.2019 7 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 was conducted in the year 2007 and land was allotted vide G.O.Ms.No.1100, dated 16.08.2007. An extent of Ac.238.28 guntas (leased for a period of 99 years) was identified by RDO and possession was delivered to APSFC. It is further submitted that survey was conducted in the year 2020 and the entire land in Sy.No.307/1 of Gajularamaram Village allotted is in continuous possession of APSFC from the date of handing over.
15. Learned counsel submitted that filing of two FIR's is permissible as there are change in circumstances. It is submitted that the first FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint on 25.02.2023, when petitioner/accused tried to level the land with gravel and tried to construct the fencing in APSFC land. It is further submitted that a number of writ petitions are filed for identification and demarcation of subject land.
16. When this Court queried the learned counsel for respondent No.2-APSFC as to whether any fencing around the entire property was done, after survey was conducted in 2007, it is stated that no such fencing was done. It is 8 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 further submitted that District Collector vide letter dated 12.10.2022, sought for a report of Mandal Surveyor with respect to land in Sy.No.335/1/4 to an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas. That a report was submitted by Mandal Surveyor and Mandal Giridwar, that out of the total extent of Ac.11.28 guntas in Sy.No.335, land to an extent of Ac.3.28 guntas is classified as Government land and the remaining extent of land of Ac.8.00 guntas is patta land recorded in the name of accused/petitioner as pattadar and covered by fencing. It is also submitted that in the said report, it was observed that there was a HMDA notified lake preliminary in the said survey number and no "Shikam" was observed as per the village map, whereas "bund" was observed as per village map. Relying upon the report, it is contended that the entire issue pertains to identification and demarcation raised by petitioner/accused, in spite of survey being conducted in 2020 (with respect to land allotted to APSFC).
17. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to orders in W.P.Nos.10592 of 2022, 10591 of 2022 and to 9 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 the Review Order in W.P.No.10592 of 2022. It is submitted that in the W.P.No.10592 of 2022 filed by petitioner/ accused to declare the action of respondents as illegal for interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner, that the learned Single Judge of this Court clarified that order in W.P.No.10592 of 2022 is not applicable to APSFC and is directed against the municipality.
18. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.
19. An FIR bearing No.241 of 2023 came to be lodged on 29.03.2023 basing on the complaint of Executive Director of APSFC on the ground that petitioner/accused encroached a part of the land in Sy.No.307/1 and illegally constructed fencing in APSFC land. Land admeasuring Ac.238.28 guntas in Sy.No.307/1 of Gajularamaram Village was leased to APSFC for a period of 99 years vide G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007. Possession of land was delivered by revenue officials on 20.08.2007 and 14.05.2008, after duly conducting panchanama. During the course of submissions, it is submitted by learned 10 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 counsel for APSFC that G.O.Ms.No.1100 was cancelled (by issuing another G.O.) and that land is to be resumed. The land is in the possession of APSFC as on date. It is submitted that after the bifurcation of the State, both States have equity.
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/accused relied upon the following judgments for the propositions that second FIR is not maintainable on the same set of allegations, that disputes of civil nature cannot be given a criminal flavor and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings where the dispute is essential civil in nature. The following extracts of the relevant paragraphs are relied upon by the counsel for petitioner/accused for the above propositions.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B., 6 held as follows:
"16. The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed by this Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.14. It was held that there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence 13 (2021) 5 SCC 435 14 (2001) 6 SCC 181 alleged in the first FIR or the 6 (2022) 7 SCC 124 11 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was further held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the Cr.P.C.
The Court further held that barring situations in which a counter- case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation" and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India."
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Utterakhand and others 7 held as follows:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunti and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1380 of 2023) held as follows:
7
(2013) 11 SCC 673 12 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 "11. In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B (2022) 7 SCC 124, one of us, (Krishna Murari J.,) observed in reference to earlier decisions as under:
"24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 513] observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.
25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn. Case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , SCC p. 749, para 13) "13. ... Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
24. This Court requested learned counsel appearing on behalf of APFSC (presently TSFSC) to produce a copy of joint survey inspection report conducted, a copy of the report is produced before this Court. From the report, it is observed that survey and demarcation of land (extent of Ac.238.28 guntas in Sy.No.307/1) was conducted by a team of officials (i.e., survey officials, revenue officials and APFSC officials). It is further observed from the report that 13 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 in the presence of these officials, demarcation was completed and sketch was prepared showing boundary of Sy.No.307/1 between SFC land and patta lands and that SFC officials erected the boundary pegs marked on the spot.
25. It was contended by the counsel for petitioner/ accused that the dispute is civil in nature. But, no proceedings civil in nature are brought to the notice of this Court, except for the pending writ petitions and orders rendered by learned Single Judges in writ petitions. The contention that the dispute is civil in nature takes a back seat in the facts of the case, once the boundary pegs are marked after a survey, any interference into such demarcated land would only demonstrate the intention of the petitioner/accused to trespass into the land of APSFC. Petitioner/accused was at liberty to initiate civil proceedings, if he had any grievance. No such proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, offences as reflected in the charge sheet need no interference on the 14 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 ground canvassed before this Court that dispute is civil in nature being given a criminal flavour.
26. Learned counsel for APSFC submitted that land allotted is engulfed in litigations. That it would be difficult for APSFC to return the entire subject land, if such encroachments are permitted to continue. That it would be an impossible task for APSFC to return subject land admeasuring Ac.238.28 guntas to the State Government.
27. This Court is conscious of the fact that jurisdiction exercised is under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Factual aspect reveals that the genesis of the criminal proceedings is the subject land. Needless to state that APSFC is always at liberty to take steps to protect the subject property, except the disputed portion, by raising a fence (provided if there are no legal proceedings pending with regard to the fencing of the subject property). It can demarcate the land engulfed in litigations. This would protect the property of the State handed over to APSFC.
15
JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024
28. It is apparent from the record that litigations are cropping up over the subject land allotted to APSFC. A number of writ petitions are brought to the notice of this Court, no less than 12 in number taxing the valuable time of High Court. No citizen is prevented from taking recourse to legal proceedings, be it civil or criminal. No civil proceedings are initiated by any of the parties.
29. Now, the point for consideration is, whether proceedings can be quashed for registration of a second FIR on the same set of allegations. Perused the contents in both the complaints. Complaint dated 25.02.2023 is as follows:
"Sir, Sub: Criminal Trespass and encroachment into the land belongs to AP State Financial Corporation located at Sy.No.307/1 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District), Telangana State-Request to lodge criminal case against S.Janaki Ramaiah - Reg.
Ref: G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007.
*** The Government of Andhra Pradesh alienated the land extent of Ac.33.11 guntas in Sy.No.308/2, 3 & 5 and also allotted the land extent of Ac.238.28 guntas on lease basis for 99 years in Sy.No.307/1 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District), Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh State 16 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 Financial Corporation (APSFC) vide G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007.
The possession of the land was delivered to the Corporation on 20.08.2007 and 14.05.2008 by the Revenue Officials of Quthubullapur Mandal duly conducting Panchanamas. APSFC has been in continuous possession and occupation of the land covered by G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007.
The Corporation engaged the services of Security agency M/s. Grace Security & Services, Hyderabad for watch & ward of the land and security agency informed to APSFC that some of the local persons namely S.Janaki Ramaiah S/o. Venkata Narayana (aged about 60 years) encroached the part of land in Sy.No.307/1 and illegally constructed the fencing in APSFC land.
Our Security Guards and Security Supervisor inspected the site on 20.02.2023 and found that S.Janaki Ramaiah leveling the land with gravel.
S.Janaki Ramaiah continued to encroach the land in Sy.No.307/1 (backside of Gali Pochamma temple) and constructed the fencing in APSFC land in spite of continuous monitoring (photos enclosed).
Hence, we request you to register the complaint against S.Janaki Ramaiah and take necessary action."
30. The second complaint lodged on 29.03.2023 is as follows:
"Sir, Sub: Criminal Trespass and encroachment into the land belongs to AP State Financial Corporation located at Sy.No.307/1 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District), Telangana State- Request to lodge criminal case against S.Janaki Ramaiah - Reg.
Ref: G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007.
*** The Government of Andhra Pradesh alienated the land extent of Ac.33.11 guntas in Sy.No.308/2, 3 & 5 and also allotted the land extent of Ac.238.28 guntas on lease basis for 99 years in Sy.No.307/1 of 17 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District), Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) vide G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007.
The possession of the land was delivered to the Corporation on 20.08.2007 and 14.05.2008 by the Revenue Officials of Quthubullapur Mandal duly conducting Panchanamas. APSFC has been in continuous possession and occupation of the land covered by G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16.08.2007.
The Corporation engaged the services of Security agency M/s. Grace Security & Services, Hyderabad for watch & ward of the land and security agency informed to APSFC that some of the local persons namely S.Janaki Ramaiah S/o. Venkata Narayana (aged about 50 years) encroached the part of land in Sy.No.307/1 and illegally constructed the fencing in APSFC land.
Janaki Ramaiah continued to encroach the land in Sy.No.307/1 (backside of Gali Pochamma temple) and constructed the fencing in APSFC land in spite of continuous monitoring.
Hence, we request you to register the complaint against Janaki Ramaiah and take necessary action."
31. Except one paragraph i.e., paragraph No.4 in complaint dated 25.02.2023, contents are same, paragraph No.4 is as follows:
"...Our Security Guards and Security Supervisor inspected the site on 20.02.2023 and found that S.Janaki Ramaiah leveling the land with gravel."
32. Deletion of paragraph No.4 from the second complaint does not alter the nature of complaint, complaint dated 28.03.2023 is identical to complaint dated 25.02.2023, word by word, it's a verbatim reproduction. 18
JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 No change in circumstances or new circumstances are noted. It is settled proposition of law that a second complaint can lie on fresh facts or even on previous facts only if a special case is made out. No special circumstances or a special case is made out. By virtue of second complaint, FIR bearing No.241 of 2023 came to be registered for same offences. Allegations are identical, second FIR cannot be sustained on the same set of facts and allegations.
33. Contentions canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner/accused that a second FIR cannot be maintained on the same set of allegations is a valid contention. The contentions advanced on the ground of non-maintainability of a second FIR cannot be brushed aside and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no reason to continue the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, arising out of FIR No.241 of 2023. If proceedings are permitted to continue on the basis of second complaint, it would amount to abuse of process of 19 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 law. Proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, arising out of FIR No.241 of 2023 are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Any observations made in this order shall not influence the trial Court while considering or concluding the case.
34. For the reasons aforesaid, Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 15.04.2025 PLP/KRR 20 JAK, J CRL_P_15346_2024 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.15346 OF 2024 Date: 15.04.2025 PLP/KRR