Telangana High Court
A.Manohar, R.R.Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp Anr., on 23 August, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3374 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner - accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.553 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for the offence under Sections 193, 199, 209, 384, 420, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as hereunder:
a) The respondent No.2-de-facto complainant is the absolute owner of the open land admeasuring 291 square yards situated at Balanagar Village on the Bombay Highway Road adjacent to Bocharaji Timber Depot having purchased from the original owner Late A. Dharmalingam, who has purchased the said property to an extent of 2015 square yards by registered sale deed vide document No.323 of 1960 dated 25.04.1960 and obtained all the necessary permissions from the Urban Land Ceiling, HUDA and Municipal Authority. During the month of September, 1980 A. Dharmalingam dumped the building 2 material and constructed the compound wall and was in possession of the said land. The petitioner-accused has worked in the agricultural lands and dairy farm of A. Dharmalingam and very well known about the said property.
b) The petitioner-accused has trespassed into the part of the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant without having any right and title over the property. The protected tenant has filed case against the petitioner-accused in the LGC Court vide LGC No.30 of 2006. the petitioner-accused has engaged the counsel and filed the written statement admitting the title of A. Dharmalingam. The petitioner-accused has given an undertaking before the Balanagar Police on 31.07.2011 in a theft case by admitting that the title of A. Dharmalingam over the said property to an extent of 2015 square yards. The petitioner - accused has changed the counsel on record in the LGC Court in LGC No.30 of 2006 and amended the written statement and denied the title of A. Dharmalingam and the petitioner-accused has declared himself as the owner by claiming that he is in the possession for the past 50 years.
c) The petitioner-accused has filed false chief affidavit on 17.07.2012 in the LGC No.30 of 2006, wherein in the Para No.3 3 of the affidavit the petitioner-accused has denied the ownership of A. Dharmalingam over the property. As per the letter given in his own hand writing on 31.07.2011 to the Balanagar Police, the open land to an extent of 2015 square yards belongs to A. Dharmalingam. In the cross - examination before the LGC Court in LGC No.30 of 2016 the petitioner-accused stated that the property belongs to his ancestors. In the WP affidavit filed before the High Court the petitioner-accused has stated that he is in possession of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.111 of Balanagar Village. The petitioner-accused has stated in the cross-
examination in LGC No.30 of 2016 that he do not know the survey number of land in his possession.
d) The petitioner-accused has intentionally suppressed the facts to misguide the Court to get wrongful gain he was given a false statement before the LGC Court and filed a false affidavit before the High Court and LGC Court by suppressing the true facts with an intention to get wrongful gain to him and the petitioner-accused thereby misguiding the Court in order to get orders in his favour in wrongful way.
e) The petitioner-accused has filed false chief affidavit with false pleadings and claiming that he is in possession of the land 4 over 40 years and civil cases were filed before the Munsif West Court at R.R. District vide O.S.No.220 of 1980 and O.S.No.498 of 1996 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge at R.R. District between Mallaiah and applicants in the LGC case and A. Dharmalingam. There was a compromise between the parties i.e., A. Dharmalingam and the applicants in LGC No.30 of 2006, which is known to the petitioner-accused and the same was intentionally suppressed the fact. The petitioner-accused failed to file any documentary evidence in order to get wrongful gain and wrongful loss to the de-facto complainant and suppressed the true facts knowing very well about the said property belongs to A. Dharmalingam and part of the property belongs to de-facto complainant. The petitioner-accused has of the habit of filing false cases with false affidavit with false allegations in the Courts and claiming wrongful rights in order to get amount extra-judicially from the de-facto complainant and extortion of money from the lawful owners of the property. The petitioner- accused is demanding Rs.5 lakhs from the de-facto complainant and threatening with dire consequences through anti-social elements to harm his life and property.
f) Thus, the de-facto complainant was filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 which was subsequently referred by the magistrate concerned to the Balanagar Police Station wherein the Police have registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 193, 199, 209, 384, 420, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and subseuqnelty after completion of investigation the case registered as C.C.No.553 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. Aggrieved by the proceedings in C.C.No.553 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the petitioner-accused has filled the present criminal petition on the following grounds:
i) The dispute is purely civil in nature and the respondent No.2 categorically admitted that two suits and LGC filed in respect of the property in dispute.
ii) LGC No.30 of 2006 is still pending on the file of Land Grabbing Court, Hyderabad.
iii) The Respondent No.2 is in the habit of abusing the process of law on the same set of facts in different Police Stations as his brother - in - law is an Advocate and the said Advocate was the counsel for the petitioner in LGC for some 6 time. The petitioner was cornered and they want to settle the disputes by filing false criminal cases. In the past the complainant has filed Fir No.325 of 2013 before Charminar Police Station and it was closed.
4. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.553 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
5. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though Sri P.Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed vakalat, there was no representation. However, the counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.2 denying the averments of the criminal petition and by reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
6. It is the case of the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant that originally the land purchased by him and other land belonging to one A.Dharma Lingam, who was the owner to the extent of 2015 square yards under registered sale deed bearing document No.323 of 1960 dated 25.04.1960 and out of the said 7 extent, the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant has purchased 291 square yards from the said A.Dharma Lingam. Since the date of purchase respondent No.2-de-fato complainant to the extent of 291 square yards and A.Dharma Lingam to the extent of 2015 square yards, have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner-accused stated to be working with A. Dharma Ligam, vendor of the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant during his life time. The petitioner stated to be having information about the properties belonging to A.Dharma Lingam.
7. It is alleged by the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant that the petitioner has trespassed into 291 square yards of the land belonging to respondent No.2-de-fato complainant, which was purchased from A.Dharma Lingam. In LGC No.30 of 2006, the petitioner was one of the parties and he has filed written statement stating that A.Dhrama Lingam is the owner of the entire property of 2015 square yards including 291 square yards belonging to the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant. It is also stated by the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant that the petitioner has given undertaking befoe the Police, Balanagar on 31.07.2011 that A.Dharma Lingam is the owner of the said property. It is also the case of the respondent No.2-de-fato 8 complainant that the petitioner-accused though initially stated that A.Dharma Lingam is the owner of the property, the petitioner-accused changed his counsel and changed his written statement/counter and asserted that he is the owner of the property, which was purchased by the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant. In the said LGC No.30 of 2006, the petitioner also maintained that he has been in possession of the property for the last 40 years and the petitioner also deposed that he does not know the survey number of the land in which he is in possession of the property. It is also alleged that accused is in the habit of filing cases in various forums and extorted money. On the complaint given by the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant, the Police have registered a case against the petitioner-accused and accordingly charge sheet is also filed and the same was taken on file against the petitioner.
8. On going through the contents of charge sheet, as concluded by the Police, the petitioner stated to have mentioned in the affidavit that he is in possession of Ac.1.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.111 of Balanagar Village. Whereas in the LGC No.30 of 2006 the petitioner-accused has stated that he does not know the survey number. It is submitted finally by the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant that the petitioner-accused does not 9 even know as to in which land he is in possession of the property and he is not the owner of the any property and he is in the habit of encroaching the land by threatening.
9. On going through the contents of the complaint, statements of respondent No.2-de-fato complainant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other material on record including the conclusion of the Police after investigation, it is clear that there is no material to hold that the petitioner has committed any of the offence alleged against him.
10. All that the Police have stated in the charge sheet is that the petitioner has intentionally suppressed the fats and misguided the Court for wrongful gain and gave false statements before the LGC Court and false statement before the High Court and the petitioner-accused has suppressed the facts before the Court and thereby to get favourable orders. If at all the petitioner-accused has given false information or misguiding, the counter part in these proceedings will have to expose the petitioner and ultimately after disposal of the respective proceedings before the Court, aggrieved party can certainly take action against the petitioner either in the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code or for damages. 10
11. Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code deals with punishment for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code deals with punishment for giving false statement, which could be received as evidence either in the Court in the public office. Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code deals with punishment for dishonestly or fraudulently making a false statement with an intention to cause injury. In respect of these offences i.e., Sections 193, 199 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, there is a bar from taking cognizance under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code deals with extortion, which is defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to fasten the liability under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to allege and prove that the petitioner-accused by putting the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant of fear of injury, dishonestly induces him to deliver either property or valuable security. Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. So, far as these offences are concerned, it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the petitioner-accused 11 has been demanding Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent No.2-de- fato complainant and threatening with dire consequences.
13. There is no mention as to at what time, in whose presence and on which date and place, the petitioner-accused has extorted Rs.5 lakhs. In fact, even according to respondent No.2- de-fato complainant, the petitioner-accused is alleged to have demanded Rs.5 lakhs only and the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant has not parted with any money in favour of the petitioner-accused on account of such alleged extortion. Therefore, when the petitioner-accused has not extorted any money at all and when there is no details at all in respect of alleged extortion of money, there are no ingredients to hold that the petitioner-accused has committed offence punishable either under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code or 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. It is also alleged by the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant that the petitioner-accused has committed offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the offence under Sections 447 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant is expected to make out a case that he has purchased 291 square 12 yards of land from his vendor A.Dharma Lingam and that the petitioner-accused has trespassed into the piece of land, which was purchased and is allegedly in the possession of the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant. It is the case of the petitioner-accused that he has been in possession of the land in the land for the last more than 40 years and cases are pending in civil court and land grabbing court. Therefore, until and unless, it is decided that the piece of land, where the petitioner has allegedly trespassed belongs to the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant, it cannot be said that the petitioner has trespassed into his land.
15. It is also alleged by the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant that the petitioner-accused has committed offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. On going through the entire charge sheet and other material on record, it is clear that there is no allegation either in the complaint or in the statement of witnesses that the petitioner- accused has caused damage to the property belonging to the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant and value of which is more than Rs.50/-. In order to substantiate that the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is expected to make out a case that the damage caused by the 13 petitioner-accused is Rs.50/- and above. If at all there is any kind of damage, a panchanama was required to be conducted by the Police to that extent. However, as seen from the charge sheet, there is nothing as to which part of the land belonging to the respondent No.2-de-fato complainant is damaged and value of the said damage is more than Rs.50/-. Therefore, except mentioning the provision under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, the Police concerned did not make any attempt to ascertain as to whether the ingredients are found in the complaint or in the investigation attracting the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, basing on the complaint, the Police concerned should not have filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner-accused under Sections 193, 199, 209, 384, 420, 427, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code without there being any ingredients. Thus, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.553 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad would amount to abuse of process of law.
14
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and thereby the proceedings against petitioner-accused in C.C.No.553 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 23.08.2022 AS