Allowed

D. Rajeswari, v. D.N.Balakrishna Naidu

Telangana HC14 Dec 2011CRLP/3647/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that criminal proceedings filed via private complaints by parties in a land title dispute, where ownership is not judicially finalized, suffer from a lack of prima facie case. Consequently, the criminal petitions were allowed and the attached criminal cases were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petitions Nos. 3647, 4966, and 5276 of 2008 allowed; C.C. Nos. 60 of 2008 and 192 of 2005 quashed.

D. Rajeswari, Vs D.N.Balakrishna Naidu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶2

Crl. Petition Nos.3647, 4966 and 5276 of 2008

¶3

Date: 14.12.2011

¶4

Crl.P.No.3647 of 2008:

¶5

Between:

¶6

D. Rajeswari

¶7

and 7 others … Petitioners

¶8

AND

¶9

1. D.N. Balakrishna Naidu 2.State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondents

¶10

Crl.P.No.4966 of 2008:

¶11

Between:

¶12

D.N. Balakrishnama Naidu … Petitioner/A.1

¶13

AND

¶14

1. D. Rajeswari 2.State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondents

¶15

Crl.P.No.5276 of 2008:

¶16

Smt. D. Nirmala

¶17

and 7 others … Petitioners

¶18

AND

¶19

1. Smt. D. Rajeswari 2.State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondents

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition Nos.3647, 4966 and 5276 of 2008

¶21

COMMON ORDER:

¶22

The three Criminal Petitions are inter-connected. I refer to the parties as they are arrayed in Criminal Petition No.3647 of 2008. The husband of the first petitioner (in Criminal Petition No.3647 of 2008) was the elder brother of the first respondent. The husband of the first petitioner is no more. The first petitioner herself is elder to the first respondent. There were disputes between the parties in respect of Ac.2.44 cents of land in Survey No.103, Chuttugunta Ramapuram, Ramachandra Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. The first petitioner and her husband on the one side claim title to the same, whereas the second respondent also claims title for the same property. A suit was laid between the parties in respect of the mango tope situate in these lands.

¶23

In A.S.No.3 of 2004, the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur held that the disputed property is not the self-acquired property of the husband of the first petitioner herein. The question

¶24

as to who is the owner of the property is still open for determination by the Court.

¶25

2. While so, the first petitioner filed a complaint with the police that on 10.05.2004, the first respondent along with the other accused in C.C.No.192 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur trespassed on to the land, committed mischief and various other offences. Police, after due verification, filed final report that no offence occurred as alleged by the first petitioner. The first petitioner, consequently, filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur took the case on file under Sections 341, 352, 392, 506, 509, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and numbered the same as C.C.No.192 of 2005.

¶26

3. On the other hand, the first respondent lodged a complaint with the police that on 29.05.2006 alleging that at about 10 a.m., the first petitioner along with other petitioners committed trespassed into the property and committed various offences. The complaint filed by the first respondent was referred by the police, through a final report. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein.

¶27

The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur took the private complaint filed by the first respondent on file as C.C.No.60 of 2008 under Sections 342, 352, 506 (2), 427

¶28

and 447 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶29

4. Sri V.V.M Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the respective cases filed by the first petitioner and the first respondent were true, while the complaint filed by the first respondent and the first petitioner did not establish prima facie cases. It may be noticed that the origin of both the cases is Ac.2-44 cents of garden land in Survey No.103. The first petitioner and the first respondent claimed title and possession over the property. It is not judicially finalized as to who is the owner of the property out of the first petitioner and the first respondent. While things stood thus, each side complained that the other side trespassed on to this land and committed various offences. The basis of these complaints is trespass. Where the title of the first petitioner and the first respondent over the property and their possession has not been judicially decided and is in controversy, both the petitions suffer from lack of prima facie case. The first petitioner prima facie failed to show that she is the owner of the property and has been in possession of the same. Same is the case with the first respondent, the question of other side trespassing and committing various offences, therefore, does not arise.

¶30

5. In this background, these cases, which are merely a case and counter, do not show prima facie cases. I consider it appropriate to quash the proceedings

¶31

in both the cases. Accordingly, C.C.No.60 of 2008 and C.C.No.192 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur are liable to be quashed.

¶32

6. Accordingly, Criminal Petitions Nos.3647 of 2008, 4966 of 2008 and 5276 of 2008 are allowed. The proceedings in C.C.Nos.60 of 2008 and 192 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur are hereby quashed.

¶33

________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 14.12.2011 Isn

D. Rajeswari, v. D.N.Balakrishna Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Rajeswari, v. D.N.Balakrishna Naidu

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

The Sunrise Co-oP Housing Society Ltd., Vs Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar

Duvvuru Satyanarayana (died) Vs Grandhi Krishnavenamma

Kum. D.Saibaba Vs The General Manager

Ms. Vegiraju Yamani Nagalakshmi, Vs The State of A.P.

Vankayalapati Srinivas (A1) Vs Gundavarapu Prajapathi Rao

Maddu George Vs Maddu Padma Latha