Petitioners sought quashing of a charge-sheet case for offences under Sections 447, 506 read with 34 IPC arising from a land dispute with pending civil suits. The court held the contentions raised were disputed questions of fact not decidable under Section 482 CrPC and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.827 OF 2024
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.245 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. The petitioners herein are arrayed as A.1 to A.4 in the said C.C.
2
pending between both the parties in respect of the property, instead of getting the proceedings adjudicated on civil side, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, who is a practicing advocate, resorted in filing the criminal cases as against the petitioners with a mala fide intention. He further submits that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, no offence would be made out as against the petitioners.
3
“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
1 AIR 1992 SC 604
4
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 channelized 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 F.I.R. 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) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 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
(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.”
8. The allegations are that 2nd respondent is the
owner of mango and coconut garden situated in survey No.56/3A an extent of Ac.1.09 cents and vacant land of Ac.0.37 cent sin survey No.56/2 of Thumba village, Bangarupalem mandal, Chittoor district. E-pattadar pass book has also been issued vide patta No.438, and the boundaries are existing from times immemorial. On
6
22.11.2017 at 9.00 AM, 2nd respondent and his workers were digging pits to instal stone pillars in survey No.56/3A admeasuring Ac.0.37 cents out of Ac.0.58 cents, petitioners/A.1 to A.4 trespassed into the land and threatened not to erect stone pillars fencing with barbed wire. They have no right to do so. Hence, the report.
7
No.52/4 and Ac.0.58 cents in survey No.56/2 from his younger brother B.Vijaya Bhaskar on 26.03.2004 and an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in survey No.56/3A on 18.11.2013 from his younger brother, under registered documents. Hence, it is stated that 2nd respondent is the owner of the subject property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
8
counsel for the petitioners are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact. Truth or otherwise of the same has to be decided only during the course of trial. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
21.03.2024 DRK
9
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.827 OF 2024
21.03.2024
DRK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for trespass and criminal intimidation should be quashed when the underlying dispute is civil and suits are pending between the parties.
Whether disputed questions of title and possession can be resolved in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.Relied on¶6
AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners (A.1 to A.4 in C.C. No.245 of 2018)
State of Andhra Pradesh (1st respondent)
2nd respondent / defacto complainant
K. Sreenivasa Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
