Criminal petition to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C allowed as dispute regarding land extent is pending as a civil suit for partition. Criminal invocation held unwarranted and proceedings quashed.
Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.383 of 2009 are 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2369 of 2010
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused in C.C.No.383 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, to quash the proceedings therein.
2. Facts in brief are: The first respondent presented a report before the S.H.O., Narsingi P.S. alleging interalia that on 13.12.2008 the petitioner herein accompanied by anti-social elements came upon her land and tried to occupy the same. The watchman engaged by her tried to prevent him. Thereupon he beat the watchman namely Venkata Reddy and threatened him with dire consequences. Basing on the said report a case in Crime No.332 of 2008 under Section 447, 427, 506 read with 34 IPC came to be registered. After due investigation, the Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police Station laid charge sheet in the Court of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.383 of 2009. Hence this petition by the accused to quash the proceedings therein.
3. Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-de facto complainant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent-State.
4. Sri C.Padmanahba Reddy, learned senior counsel contends that the dispute between the first respondent-de facto complainant and the petitioner is with regard to the extent of the land possessed by them in survey no.163, 164, 165, 131 of Narsingi Village and the petitioner herein and another filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their share and the said suit is pending trial. It is also contended by the learned senior
counsel that the dispute between the petitioner-accused and the first respondent-de facto complainant is purely civil in nature. Therefore initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-de facto complainant has not disputed the fact of pendency of the civil suit wherein partition and separate possession has been sought for by the petitioner herein.
5. I have gone through the charge sheet averments. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the various extents mentioned in the sale deeds under which they claim title to the property. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the property and the said suit is pending. In that view of the matter, I find that invocation of the criminal proceedings by the first respondent-de facto complainant is wholly unwarranted and the Criminal Petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings i n C.C.No.383 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, are quashed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
21st September, 2012. VJL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether invocation of criminal proceedings is warranted when a civil suit for partition is pending.
Whether the dispute regarding land extent should be adjudicated through civil courts rather than criminal proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Accused)
First Respondent (De facto complainant)
State
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
