Dismissed

Karumuri Naga Muneendra v. KarumuriMutyala Naga Venkata Lakshmi Narasimham at Nagababu

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2022CRLP/1571/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for trespass and harassment regarding a land dispute. It found that since no defense was offered and factual disputes remained to be tried, the proceedings were not quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.602 of 2018 were not quashed; petition dismissed.

Karumuri Naga Muneendra Vs KarumuriMutyala Naga… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1571 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

The present Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.602 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. A Charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,341 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.207 of 2018 of Mogalturu Police Station.

¶4

Brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant had two brothers, elder brother by name Karumuri Naga Muneendra/ petitioner No.1. The defacto complainant owns a land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in R.S.No.732/1 situated in Mogaltur Village nearby Anjaneya Swamy Temple. In this connection, 1^st petitioner, with a view to grab the property share from the defacto complainant, filed suit in O.S.No.94 of 2012 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narasapuram and the said suit was partly decreed on 05.03.2018 and also in favour of the defacto complainant. After obtaining the Court permission, the defacto complainant engaged labors to clean the land. While so, on 15.09.2018 at about 10.00 am, while the defacto complainant was in field, petitioners trespassed into

¶5

¶6

the site belonging to the defacto complainant, threatened the defacto

¶7

complainant in several ways and abused him. However, he was rescued by some of list of witnesses, chastised the accused, the accused also uttered that none can do anything against defacto complainant. Thereafter, a report was lodged in the police station. Upon which the police registered a case in crime No. 207 of 2018 of Mogalturu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is a case and counter case, earlier petitioner No.2 registered a case against the defacto complainant and the same was registered as Crime No.208 of 2018 for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427 323 r/w 34 of IPC. The police investigated the case and filed charge sheet at the end of year 2018 and the notice to the complainant was issued on 01.06.2019, which clearly shows that the police failed to investigate both the cases in proper lines.

¶9

Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is appearing as on date, none represented the case.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶11

Going through the accusations contained in the charge sheet filed, there are disputes with regard to the land between both the brothers. Petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.94 of 2012 on the file of the

¶12

¶13

learned X Additional District Judge, Narasapuram and by way of judgment dated 05.03.2018, the learned Judge passed an order in favour of the defacto complainant. After obtaining the Court permission, the defacto complainant went to the site on 15.09.2018 and the petitioners/accused, with malafide intention, trespassed into the land and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. Upon that, the defacto complainant resorted in filing the present crime against the petitioners/accused.

¶14

The contention of the learned counsel is that there is a case and counter case. The case filed by the petitioners/accused has been rejected on the ground that there is no ground to quash the proceedings in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant. At this stage, this Court has to go only by the accusations contained in the charge sheet considering the averments as it is, whether a case has to be made out or not. There is absolutely no defence on part of the petitioners/accused. Truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial and this court would not be in a position enquire in respect of the disputed questions of fact. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings.

¶15

Since, accused No.1 is a old man and accused No.3 is a student, aged 25 years, presence of accused Nos. 1 and 3 has been dispensed

¶16

¶17

with before the trial Court and on behalf of them, accused No.2 will be attending before the trial Court except on those days where the learned Magistrate feels their presence of the petitioners/A1 and A3 is necessary.

¶18

With the said observation, the present Criminal Petition has

¶19

been disposed of.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Date: 01.09.2022 BSP

161

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1571 of 2020

¶27

Date: 01.09.2022

¶28

BSP

Karumuri Naga Muneendra v. KarumuriMutyala Naga Venkata Lakshmi Narasimham at Nagababu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karumuri Naga Muneendra v. KarumuriMutyala Naga Venkata Lakshmi Narasimham at Nagababu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

His Prashad Distributors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Putturu Niranjan Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Korrapati Madhava Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vimala Radha Krishnan Vs State of Ap.

Vimala Radhakrishnan Vs State of Ap.

N.Govindu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh