Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Venkateswarlu Thanikonda, vs E Srikanth on 2 April, 2024
APHC010196072020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2923/2020
Between:
Venkateswarlu Thanikonda, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
E Srikanth and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. RAJA REDDY KONETI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is preferred by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.887 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukuru, registered for the offences under Sections 427, 447, 353 and 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,18602 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,19843.
1 for short 'Cr.P.C' 2 for short 'IPC' 3 for short 'the Act' 2
2. The facts mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
a. Respondent No.1, who is the-then Panchayat Secretary, Pedakandlagunta Panchayat, lodged a complaint alleging that as per the Orders of the Government, land in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.202 which is a gramakantam land was identified for construction of Village Secretariat building in Pedakandlagunta Village. While so, Petitioner/Accused No.1 approached this Court for stopping the said construction, and the High Court passed interim orders for continuation of the construction.
b. That being so, on 09.06.2020 at about 11.30 a.m., Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 to 6 came to the land with crowbars and spats etc and damaged the preparations done for construction.
c. On receipt of information about the same through the Field Assistant Polineni Lakshminarasaiah and Pavuluri Raghava Rao, the staff of Secretariat along with Secretariat Police came there and they were also prevented. Respondent No.1 having received the information through the Staff of Secretariat over phone, went to the scene and found that the construction work was damaged and Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 obstructed his duties.
d. As such, he lodged a complaint against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 with the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.120/2020 for the above said offences by Kondepi Police Station, Prakasam District.
e. After due investigation, Police filed charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.887 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukuru for the aforementioned offences.3
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioners filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds:
a. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 are in occupation of the said land, as such, the allegation that it is not in possession of anybody is totally false. b. There is lot of government land available in the Village, which is suitable for construction of the Village Secretariat, but due to political reasons and group rivalry in the Village, the said land is being selected. c. The subject site in gramakantam is not a government land and it belongs to the Petitioners 2 to 6. This Court in W.P.No.9698 of 2020 having found that the Petitioners are in possession of the land, disposed of the said petition stating that due process of law is to be followed. d. The Authorities are harassing the persons who are in possession of the said land by initiating illegal proceedings and not following the due process of law. Even if the Government is the owner of the said land, when individuals are in possession of the property, due process is to be followed. e. None of the offences alleged are attracted in the present case. f. When the Petitioners are claiming possession and title over the said property, the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC do not attract. The offence under Section 3 of PDPP Act is also not attracted when once Section 447 IPC is not attracted.
g. The very act of the Authorities is atrocious and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the right to life includes the right to livelihood 4 and a residential house site is sought to be deprived without following due process. Hence, the question of obstruction public servants or damaging the property do not arise.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that the subject land is a gramakantam land but not a Government land. It is contended that the Respondent No.1 has no right to dispossess the Petitioners even by due process of law and that this Court cannot decide the rights and title over the subject property in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would submit that the fact remains that, in the light of the Orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9698 of 2020, the Petitioners are in possession of the said property. In proof of their possession, the Petitioners filed some certificates in W.P.No.9698 of 2020 and it was represented by the learned Government Pleader that they do not want to dispossess the Petitioner without due process of law. As the possession of the Petitioners over the subject land is being protected by the orders of this Court in the above writ petition, the question of trespass into the subject land and other consequential offences by the 5 Petitioners does not arise. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.
6. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination
7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.887 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukuru?
Determination by the Court
8. 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 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 6 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4 AIR 1992 SC 604 7 (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal 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 redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In the present case, Respondent No.2, who is the-then Panchayat Secretary, Pedakandlagunta Grampanchayat lodged a complaint alleging that, the subject land which is a gramakantam land was identified for construction of Village Secretariat building in Pedakandlagunta Village. While so, on 09.06.2020 at about 11.30 a.m., under the leadership of Petitioner No.2, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 to 6 came to the land with crowbars and spats etc and damaged the preparations done for construction. It is the claim of the 8 Petitioners that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. A bare perusal of the material on record would go to show that, Petitioners are in occupation of the said land. Petitioners also got issued a legal notice to the Revenue Officials stating that the Petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property since long time and on their application for construction of houses, the Tahsildar, Kondepi issued possession certificates for housing loan from the Government in the year 2019.
11. When the land was sought to be taken over for the purpose of construction of Secretariat, Petitioners 4 and 5 approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9698 of 2020 and the same was disposed on 04.06.2020 by recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that if the subject lands in possession of the Petitioners are required for any public purpose, of if there is any violation of conditions of patta, due process of law will be adhered to. It clearly shows that the Petitioners are in possession of the subject property and they have patta also. When their possession is being protected by the Order of this Court, the question of the criminal trespass by the Petitioners into the subject land and the commission of consequential offences, as alleged in the complaint, do not arise. No case has been made out against the Petitioners for the offence alleged against them. Therefore, it can be said that the allegations mentioned in the complaint are baseless and are not tenable. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise 9 the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.887 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukuru for the offences under Sections 427, 447, 353 and 109 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.04.2024 Dinesh 10 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2923 of 2020 Dt.02.04.2024 Dinesh