In a criminal petition, the court examined complaints under Sections 448 and 506 of the IPC arising from a property dispute between family members. Finding the case to be an abuse of process of criminal law, the court quashed the proceedings.
Proceedings in CC.No.80 of 2009 quashed.
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 SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10769 of 2009
ORDER:
The petitioners 1 to 7/A1 to A7 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 448, 506/34 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. A2 is wife and A3 and A4 are sons of A1. A5 and A6 are brothers and A7 is sister of A2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to house property. The 2nd respondent is stated to have approached Civil Court in respect of the said property and obtained order of status quo. Ultimately, the said status quo order was vacated by the Civil Court and it was finally confirmed by this Court in Revision Petition. The 2nd respondent and the accused are all family members. 2nd respondent’s husband and A1 are brothers. When there is civil dispute pending in Court with regard to the property in question making bonafide claim of title by two parties, Section 448 cannot be invoked without there being a definite finding with regard to possession of the property with the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. In this case, there is only scramble between the two parties for the property.
Section 506 I.P.C. was introduced only to add flavour to the basic dispute for property between the two. In my opinion, this case is nothing short of abuse of process of criminal law. With a view to buttress the 2nd respondent’s claim for the property, criminal law machinery is utilized and this case is filed against A1 to A7, which is a malafide one.
2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.80 of 2009 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
__________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Dt:04.11.2011 ysk
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10769 of 2009
Dt:04.11.2011
ysk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 448 can be invoked when the dispute between parties is a property dispute with only a scramble for possession.
Whether filing criminal proceedings in a property dispute between family members amounts to abuse of process of criminal law.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Accused 1 to 7
2nd Respondent
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
