Allowed

Pasam China Venkata Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Sept 2014CRLP/9242/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR alleging trespass and crop damage because civil courts had already ruled petitioners were in possession of the disputed land, making the criminal allegations factually incorrect and an abuse of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No. 173 of 2012 of Dachepally Police Station, Guntur district, was quashed.

Pasam China Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

MONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9242 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pasam China Venkata Reddy & Anr… Petitioners/Accused

¶8

V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant

¶9

Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Pasam Srinivas Reddy

¶10

Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao for R-2

¶11

The court made the following: [order follows]

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9242 OF 2012

¶14

O R D E R :

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash FIR in Crime No. 173 of 2012 of Dachepally Police Station, Guntur District, for alleged offences under section 447, 427, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.

¶16

2. Advocate for petitioners submitted that second respondent herein filed OS.No. 140 of 2012 before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur district for injunction in respect of the same property and in that suit he filed I.A.No. 319 of 2012 for grant of temporary injunction and trial court after considering the material placed by both parties dismissed the application on merits by an order dated 03/10/2012 holding that petitioners herein are in possession of the disputed property, which is also supported and corroborated by adangal extracts which are marked as Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-5 in the said Interlocutory Application. He further submitted that after dismissal of said injunction application on 03/10/2012, this FIR is given on 23/11/2012 alleging that there was a trespass into land on 22/11/2012 and damage to cotton crop. He submitted that when the civil court gave a finding that second respondent was not in possession of disputed property and the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the

¶17

said property, the question of trespass or damaging cotton crop does not arise. He further submitted that when the petitioners themselves are in possession, contending that they have trespassed into their own property is absolutely incorrect and it is nothing but abuse of process of court and the complaint is given only with a view to harass petitioners and make them to surrender to the terms of second respondent. He further submitted that second respondent preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against dismissal of I.A.No. 319 of 2012 to the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is also dismissed on 28/12/2012, therefore, the FIR registered on the basis of incorrect facts is liable to be quashed.

¶18

3. None appeared for the second respondent inspite of posting the matter under the caption “for orders”.

¶19

4. Now the point that arises for consideration is “Whether FIR in Crime No.173 of 2012 of Dachepally Police Station, Guntur district, is liable to be quashed or not ?”

¶20

5. P O I N T : Station House Officer, Dachepally Police Station, Guntur district registered Crime No. 173 of 2012 on the complaint given by second respondent dated 23/11/2012. The allegations in the complaint is that Civil Court granted injunction in favour of complainant and when the same is in force the petitioners herein trespassed into

¶21

that land in the morning hours of 22/11/2012 and damaged cotton crop of about three quintals and when the same is questioned by the complainant he was threatened with dire consequences and that is the sum and substance of complaint on the basis of which police registered FIR for offences under section 447, 427, 506 read with section 34 of IPC.

¶22

6. As seen from the order of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala dated 03/10/2012 in I.A.No. 319 of 2012 in OS.No. 140 of 2012, Civil Court refused to grant injunction in favour of second respondent i.e., complainant on the ground that petitioners herein are in possession of disputed property as per adangal extracts. This order is dated 03/10/2012 so the allegation in the complaint that there is an injunction in favour of complainant as on 22/11/2012 and inspite of that the petitioners trespassed into that land is prima facie incorrect and consequently contending that crop was damaged and complainant was threatened with dire consequences cannot be accepted in view of the fact that petitioners were found in possession of same property by the Civil Court which order is confirmed by the appellate court. Therefore, as rightly pointed by advocate for petitioners when the petitioners themselves are in possession of disputed land, the question of trespass or causing damage to cotton crop does not arise and continuation of FIR against petitioners would amount to abuse of

¶23

process of court.

¶24

7. For the above reasons, I am of the view that this is a fit case where powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to meet the

¶25

ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of court.

¶26

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and FIR in Crime No.173 of 2012 of Dachepally Police Station, Guntur district, is hereby

¶27

quashed.

¶28

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this

¶29

criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶30

___________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR . 01/09/2014 I s L

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶32

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9242 OF 2012

¶33

Circulation No.31 Date: 01/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43

Pasam China Venkata Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasam China Venkata Reddy, 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

A. Chandra Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

Karri Yerrni Avatharam, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Shaik Pappu John S/o Imama Saheb Vs State of Telangana

Smt.Thatikonda Swaroopa, Vs The State of A.P.

Narendula Ramesh, Vs The State of A.P.

Aggdi Bakkamma, Vs The State of A.P.