Dismissed

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 v. Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

Telangana HC12 Oct 2012CRLP/11511/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing multiple criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings. The Court held that the inherent power is not attracted when an alternative remedy under Section 239 Cr.P.C. exists. It noted clear material regarding fake NOCs and directed the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

All Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Court below to dispose of any discharge petitions independently.

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

Crl.P.Nos.11492, 11493, 11498, 11500, 11502, 11503, 11504, 11505, 11506, 11507, 11508, 11510, 11511, 11512, 11513, 11514, 11515, 11516 and 11517 of 2010

¶3

Date:12-10-2012

¶4

Crl.P.No.11492 of 2010:

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy

¶7

….. Petitioner

¶8

and

¶9

Inspector of Police, CID, RCC, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others

¶10

…… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶12

Crl.P.Nos.11492, 11493, 11498, 11500, 11502, 11503, 11504, 11505, 11506, 11507, 11508, 11510, 11511, 11512, 11513, 11514, 11515, 11516 and 11517 of 2010

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

In all these petitions common question of facts and law are involved, hence they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶15

2. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.Nos.725, 726, 727, 728, 730, 733, 735, 747, 734, 736, 759, 738, 739, 740, 741, 743, 744, 745 and 746 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471,

¶16

120-B r/w 110, 166 and 34 IPC in favour of the petitioners herein.

¶17

3. In all the criminal petitions, the petitioner is common who

¶18

was arrayed as A-2, A-3, A-2, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-4, A-2, A-3, A-3, A-10, A-3, A-3, A-4, A-3, A-5, A-2, A-3 and A-2 and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the said criminal cases respectively.

¶19

4. It is necessary to note briefly relevant facts of different cases which are as follows:

¶20

The alleged offences are concerned with the office of the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) and office of the Sub-Registrar, Patamata. The Government of Andhra Pradesh approved master plan in G.O.Ms.No.958 Municipal Administration dated 16-12-1969 for Vijayawada city and 16 villages in respect of agricultural and nonagricultural lands in different survey numbers. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt.No.661, General Administration (Spl.A) Department, dated 27-02-1976 formed office of the Special Officer/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, for Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam, Guntur and Warangal and authorized the Special Officer to perform the functions of the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) fixing the ceiling limit for vacant site under Section 4 of the Act at Vijayawada at 1,500 square yards per family and in respect of agricultural land at 5 acres per family. In fact various allegations are made against different accused whereas the specific allegations made against the petitioner in these petitions are as follows:

¶21

In respect of the property of the petitioner various No Objection Certificates (NOCs) were shown to be issued vide Nos.F.Dis/A2/1622/95, F.Dis/A2/1621/95, F.Dis/A2/1619/95 dated 0703-1996, 07-03-1996 and 29-02-1996 respectively. In fact the relevant NOC register was closed with Sl.No.1569 during the year 1995 in the office of the ULC which clearly provides that the NOCs issued in respect of the petitioner’s property are fake documents.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though there are allegations against the petitioner to the effect that he

¶23

involved in obtaining false NOCs for the purpose of registration of various plots in favour of various beneficiaries, absolutely there is no material to uphold those allegations.

¶24

The documents in question were not sent to any handwriting or fingerprint expert for examination and report to ascertain as to who actually did such mischief. It is further contended by him that the Government issued G.Os for the discharge of A-1 and concerned ULC officers and accordingly they were discharged from the cases by reason of which it is not proper to prosecute the petitioner, who is a private person and who stand on the same footing. His claim is that Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when there is abuse of process of law by way of proceeding against the petitioner without any material.

¶25

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is material with regards to the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences concerned herewith. He has contended further that steps are taken to withdraw the G.Os issued for the discharge of A-1 and others. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to certain passages in the prosecution record. Further he has contended that if there is no material to prosecute the petitioner, accordingly they can take recourse under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge by reason of which Section 482 Cr.P.C., which provides only an alternative procedure to see that no abuse of process of law would take place, cannot be invoked relying upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in PADALA VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOVVUJRI SATYANARAYANA

¶26

[1] REDDY AND OTHERS wherein it was held:

¶27

“It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provision provided under the Code (Vide Kavita V. State 2000 Crl.L.J 315 and B.S. Joshi V State of Haryana and another, 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 842 (SC) = (2003) 4 SCC 675 = AIR 2003 SC 1386 = 2003 AIR SCW 1824). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.”

¶28

7. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked here and if so whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

¶29

8. As per Section 26(1) of the Act, the land owners have to give a notice to the Special Officer, ULC office to know whether the Competent Authority of ULC wants to exercise his first option to acquire the property or not. On receipt of such notices from the land owners, they will be entered in the register maintained in the ULC office and sent to the enquiry officer in the cadre of Special Deputy Tahsildars and Special Revenue Inspectors by Special Officer, ULC Office, Vijayawada for inspection. On receipt of the instructions from the Special Officer, the Special Deputy Tahsildars and Revenue Inspectors before taking further action have to inspect the sites proposed for transfer under Section 26(1) and ascertain the identity of the boundaries of the sites and also ascertain whether the sites are vacant or any buildings are existing in the sites with the assistance of Surveyor of ULC office following which they have to verify whether any proposals are pending for land acquisition for Government purpose.

¶30

9. It is informed that C.C. files will be maintained in ULC office. Details of the lands declared by the land owners under Section 6(1) of the Act will be maintained in these files. For the rest of persons who have not declared their lands, no C.C. files will be maintained treating their lands as surplus lands. The enquiry officers have to verify the C.C. files to confirm whether the sites are within the ceiling purview or not and submit their enquiry report within three days from the date of receipt of relevant memo. The enquiry report will be put up before the Special Officer along with the corresponding applications for approval as per Section 26(1) of the Act.

¶31

The notices issued by the land owners will be verified with the enquiry reports submitted by the enquiry officers with reference to the C.C. files which contain the details of the lands declared by the land owners under Section 6(1) of the Act. After satisfying with the enquiry report or

¶32

reports submitted by the enquiry officers, NOCs will be issued by the Special Officers to the notices given subject to the provisions of Sections 2(1), 5(3) and (15) of the Act. Further the original copies of NOCs will be handed over to the land owners and to the Sub-Registrar concerned through messenger or by post. Further the land owners shall be informed within 60 days about the question of granting permissions as required.

¶33

10. What is significant is that there is clear material against the petitioner in all the petitions that in respect of his property various fake NOCs which were not covered by the relevant NOC register were issued. This strongly supports the version of the prosecution against the petitioner. If really fake NOCs were issued in respect of his property without any supporting evidence that prima facie proves his complicity in the matter without taking recourse to send all relevant documents to handwriting and fingerprint expert for examination and report. Of course if it is necessary such measures can also be taken at appropriate time. Thereby I do not find any grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage having gone through the entire record. However, under Section 239 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has got option to take necessary measures for his discharge from all the cases before the Court of trial. In fact at that stage the petitioner will have wider scope to place before the trial Court all relevant documents for necessary examination for the purpose of his discharge from all the cases.

¶34

11. Hence, for the reasons stated above, these petitions are not tenable.

¶35

12. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. The Court below has to dispose of any petitions if filed for discharge independently without being influenced by the observations made above.

¶36

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶37

Date: 12-10-2012 YCR

¶38

[1]

¶39

2011(2) ALD (CRI) 948 (SC)

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 v. Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 v. Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palepu Shashireka, Vs M/s. Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited having its

Mr.Rajan Singh Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

B. Priya Kumar Vs SMt. B. Sabitha

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 Vs Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 Vs Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

M.v.vs.N.Malleswara Rao, Vs Gurram Naiah