Dismissed

Mohd. Noor, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Feb 2012CRLP/759/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings for offences related to land possession disputes. The court held that where two crimes are registered regarding the same land based on conflicting complaints, police must investigate both before any final report is filed. Thus, quashing was not appropriate at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; interim order granted on 24-01-2012 stands vacated.

Mohd. Noor, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.759 of 2012

¶3

(Dated 08-02-2012)

¶4

Between: Mohd. Noor S/o Hussain and others A n d State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,

¶5

….Petitioners

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶8

Criminal Petition No.759 of 2012

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-1 to A-5 in Crime No.3 of 2012 of Gowraram P.S., Medak District to quash the proceedings therein.

¶11

2. The 2^nd respondent-Mohd. Abrar presented report before the Station House Officer, Gowraram P.S., alleging inter alia that the petitioners pressed into service sale deed said to have been executed by his mother and attempted to trespass on the land owned by his mother. The relevant portion of the report presented to the Station House Officer reads as hereunder:-

¶12

“ I submit that, on 01-01-2012 at about 11 a.m., said 1. Mohd. Noor, S/o Hussain , 2. Mohd. Kareem S/o Mohd. Abdullah, 3. Mohd. Irshad Hussain,S/o Mohd. Raza 4. Mohd. Illyas along with their henchmen illegally trespassed into the our said agricultural land and using muscle power tried to dispossess my brother and other agricultural labourers and when my brother enquired into the matter they disclosed that they are the owners of the said agricultural land being purchased the same from my mother by way of registered sale deed document and on hearing the same I was shocked and denied of alleged execution of any document in their favour but they were not ready to listen anything and started the fencing by damaging the agricultural field and trees, but due to timely intervention of neighbours and well wishers”.

¶13

3. Basing on the report presented by the 2^nd respondent, the

¶14

Station House Officer, Gouraram P.S registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 447, 506 and 120B IPC and took up investigation.

¶15

Hence this criminal petition with a prayer stated supra.

¶16

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant.

¶17

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the brother of the 2^nd respondent, who tried to interfere with their possession and thereafter, the petitioners filed report before the police on 15-01-2012. Thereupon, the police registered a case against the brother of the 2^nd respondent in Crime No. 8 of 2012.

¶18

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant submits that the petitioners pressed into service a fabricated document said to have been executed by Smt. Haseena Banu and they have no possession over the land in dispute.

¶19

7. Various other contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. But the fact remains that two crimes are registered in respect of the same land. One crime is registered on the complaint of the petitioners and another crime is registered on the complaint of the 2^nd respondent. The police have to necessarily investigate in both the crimes and file final reports. In that view of the matter, further proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2012 of Gowraram P.S cannot be interdicted in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to the dismissal of the criminal petition, interim order granted on 24-01-2012

¶21

shall stand vacated. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.08-02-2012 RAR

Mohd. Noor, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Noor, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kuna Santhosh Anil Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits

Mareedu Raghavendra Kumar Vs The State of Ap., Rep.by its

Chinnam Veronica Vs State of a.P., rep.by P.P.

Smt. Yedulla Ramadevi Vs The State ofAP., Rep.byits

Bommalal KIamalamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ramanaiah Vs The State of A.P.