In a land dispute involving construction of a compound wall under an interim injunction, the Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court held that the truth of allegations and facts regarding damage caused are questions of fact for the Investigating Officer.
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9889 of 2011
DATE: 14.10.2011
Between:
Sardar Gurunam Singh and another.
And
Ch. Venkateshwarlu and another.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9889 of 2011
ORDER :
The petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C.
2. It is a land dispute between the parties. The report was given by the 1st respondent as Managing Director of Challenge English Medium High School, Karimnagar. Previously, the accused party approached the Civil Court and obtained ex-parte interim injunction. 3. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that after obtaining the interim injunction order, the accused party constructed compound wall enclosing the site. Under the guise of injunction order, the accused party is not expected to construct compound wall. It is stated that the said compound wall was demolished by the 1st respondent’s men. Thereupon, private complaint was filed by the accused party against the employees of the school alleging offences under Sections 427,
447, 506, 120-B I.P.C.
4. Now, the 1st respondent gave report to the police alleging trespass into school building by the accused/petitioners herein along with their advocates and also rowdy elements and damaged gate, compound wall, furniture and other articles. 5. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that this is only a counter blast for the previous complaint fled by the accused against the employees of the school. It is a matter, which has to be appreciated by the Investigating Officer taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to damage caused to the compound wall, gate and furniture in the school. Truth or falsity of allegations in the report, becomes a question of fact, which cannot be subject matter of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. There are no grounds for quashing the F.I.R. preventing investigation of this crime at its threshold. 7. Hence the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
Date: 14.10.2011 pnb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR should be allowed in a land dispute context.
Whether allegations of counter-blast and minor damage made in the FIR prevent Police investigation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sardar Gurunam Singh
Another
Ch. Venkateshwarlu
Another
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
