Allowed

Singarapu Yellaiah, v. Katicuri Rajamallaiah

Telangana HC15 Jul 2022CRLP/11325/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC regarding alleged criminal trespass. Court held allegations lacked prima facie ingredients of offence, violated interim injunction, and did not establish petitioners as trespassers with intent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners/A-1 to A-12 in C.C. No. 266 of 2011 before Addl. J. Magistrate, Warangal, quashed.

Singarapu Yellaiah, Vs Katicuri Rajamallaiah — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,^{THE FIFTEENTHDAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSHREDDY}

¶5

CRIMI NAL^{PETITION NO: 11325 OF 2013}

¶6

Between:

¶7

1.	Sinoaraou Yellaiah,,^{S/o.Bachaiah,occupation:} viilig",^{-t\IrrnoorMandal,warangalDistrict}	^{Coolie.R/o.Allipuram}
2. -	Sinoarapu^{Poshaiah,,S/oYelaiah, occupation: coolie} Miirnoorttlandal, WarangalDistrict	^{.R/o.AllipuramVillage,}
3 -	SinoaraouUppalaiah,,^{S/o.lylaiah,Occupation:} viirig"lirrrn6orMandal,warangalDistrict	^{CoolieR/oAllipuram}
4.	SinoaraouKomuraiah,,^{s/o.Komuraiah,}.occupation: Viirlgul[,Ir.^{noor[t/landal,warangalDistrict}	^{coolie.R/o.Allipuram}
5. -	ShaoantiUppalaiah,,^{S/o.Bakkaiah, Occupation:} virii"s",MrrnoorMandal,WarangalDistrict	^{Coolie.R/o'Allipuram}
6. -	SinoaraouMogili,,^{S/o.Uppalaiah,}-Occupation:^Sa viirig",i,lurno=or Mandal,Warangal District	^{rpanch,R/oAllipuram}
7.	SinoaraDu Vinodha,,^{Wo-Uppalaiah,Occupation:} Viirig",larrnoor^{Mandal,Warangal District}	^{Coolie,R/o'Allipuram}
8. -	SinoaraouBakkamma,,^{wo.Uppalaiah,}.occupation: ViitJge, 'Mamnoor Mandal,Warangal District	^{coolie,Rio.Allipuram}
g. -	sinoarapuElisha,,wo.cheraiu,.occupation:^coolie, rrrr"i-lnoor Mandal,WarangalDistrict	^{R/o. AllipuramVillage,}
'10 -	-sinoaraDu Swaroopa,,Wo^{Saraiah, Occupation:} vii6g",MamnoorMandal,Warangal District	^{Coolie'R/o'Allipuram}
11.	Sinoaraou Kavitha,,^{WoMogili,Occupation:Hou} tiid&,Mamnoor^{Mandal' Warangal District}	^{sewife,R/o'Allipuram}
12. -	SinoaraDu Padhma,,^{W/o.Bixapathi,occupation:} ViilSge,irlamnoorMandal,Warangal District ...PET	^{Coolie. R/o.Allipuram} TTTONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1.	KaticuriRaiamallaiah,,^{S/o'Balaiah,Occupation: Form} liii.-i,f'tiEs^{udemVillage, HanamkondaMandal,War}	^{er R/o'} ^{angalDistrict}
2.	TheState of^{Andhra Pradesh,,Repby its Public Pros} A.P., atHYderabad'	^{ecutor'HighCourtof}

¶8

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶9

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash the proceedings in CC.No.266 of 2011 on the file of the lll Addl.J.F.C.M., at Warangal, and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper.

¶10

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioners in CC.No. 266 of 2011 on the file of the lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal, pending quash petition and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper.

¶12

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. PRABHAKAR REDDY(830), Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and of Sri A. Ravinder (2036), Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 .

¶13

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶14

THE I{ONOURABLE SI{I JUS'TICE A.SANI'IIOSH ITEDDY

¶15

CRI-.P.No.l ll25 OF 2013

¶16

oRDt.R:

¶17

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A- I to A- l2 in C.C.No.266 of 201l, on the file ol the lll-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal.

¶18

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel firr the first respondenVcomplainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the record.

¶19

The second respondent filed a complaint against petitioners/ A-1 to A-12 before police alleging that he has taken the agricultural land an extent of Acs.l-20 Gts., in Sy.No.75 of Allipuram Village belonging to Poshala Sadanandam on lease. On 02.06.201I at about 04:00 pm, when the complainant and his son were ploughing the [and, the petitioners/A- I to A-12 illegally trespassed into the land and damaged the fencing wire and pillars fixed around the land, thereby causing damage to a tune of Rs.50,0004. Based on the above complaint, the police registered

¶20

¶21

a case in Cr.No.61 of 201 I and took up investigation. After cornpletior.r ol' investigation, the police fi!ed charge sheet in C.C.No.266 of 20ll lor the offenc6s punishable under Sections 447. 427 read with Section 34 IPC against A- I to A- I 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed present criminal petition.

¶22

l.earned counsel for the petitioners contertris that thc cornplainaut is neither connected with the land in question nor has he taken the same in question on leasc fiom Mr.Poshala Sadanandam and cultivating the same. The petitioners herein have not interfered with the said land and caused darnage to the lencing poles and wire as alleged. He further contends that originally one Kallepalli Chandraiah was the original owner of the Iand in question and the after his death, the said property devolved to the vendors of Mrs. Macharla Rajyalaxrni, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed.

¶23

Leamed counsel further contends that the first petitioner and his family members are working in the land of Mrs.Rajyalaxmi on sharing basis and while so, one Poshala Sadanandam and others have started interfering with the possession of the first petitioner

¶24

¶25

I I I

¶26

and his farnily members, tbr which the said Mrs.Rajl,alaxmi filed a suit in O.S.No.222 ol 20 ll betbre the I[-Junior Civil Judge, Waragnal for permanent injunction restraining Poshala Sadanandam and others from interfering with hel possession and also obtained interim injunction. Therefore, from the above it is clear that neither the complainant nor the said Poshala Sadanandam are the owners of the [and.^The allegations^{made in} the complaint are false and he prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A- I to A- 12.

¶27

Leamed counsel for the petitioners also contends that earlier the first respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging that on 26.02.2011, the petitioners/A-3, A-4 and four others have damaged the borewell dug in respect of the property in question and that the said property was given to him as Pasupu Kumkuma and he is in possession of the same since 40 years. Based on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.l5 of 201 I for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427,323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The first respondent/complainant made contradictory statement in the present complaint that has taken

¶28

¶29

¶30

the land in question on lease lrom Mr.Poshala Sadanandarn arrd cultivating the same.

¶31

Learned counsel lor the fi r'st respondent./complainant contends that the allegations in the coraplaint satisly the ingledients of the offence alleged. A perusal of statements of the witnesses, coupled with the allegations in the cornplaint prima .facie^{goes to show that the caseagainst the petrtionerscan be} proceeded with. There are no justifiable grounds to allow the criminal petition and prays for dismissing the criminal petition.

¶32

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutoi for the second respondent/State contends that the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable in nature and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be asceftained only after full-fledged trial. She prays for dismissing the criminal petition.

¶33

The prosecution case is that while the second respondent along with his son was cultivating the tand, the petitioners illegally trespassed into the land and damaged the fencing wire and pillars fixed around it and thereby caused damage to a tune of Rs.50,000/-.

¶34

¶35

¶36

To constitute the of'fence ol criminal trespass under

¶37

Section 44 I IPC, there must be unauthorized 'entry', or if the entry has been lawfully and legitimately obtained, there must be unlaq,ful 'remaining', either directly or constructively, against the witl of the person in possession. In either case, the unlawful entry, or unlawful remaining, must be with an intent to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult, or annoy, any person in possession of the property. Section 447 prescribes the punishment for criminal tre spas s.

¶38

I I. The allegations in the charge sheet and complaint reveal that while the complainant along with his son was cultivating the [and, the petitioners criminally trespassed in the land. The contention ol learned counsel lor the petitioners is that neither Mr.Poshala Sadanandam is the owner of the land nor is the second respondent cultivating the same as a lease holder. It is his further contention that one Mrs.Macharla Rajyalaxmi is the owner of the land in question and, in fact, while the first petitioner and his family members are cultivating the land on sharing basis, Mr.Poshala Sadanandam and others have started interfering with the possession

¶39

¶40

I I

¶41

of the first petitioner and his farnily rnembers arrd the said Mrs.Rajyalaxnri filed a suit in O.S.No.222 oi 20 l l lor permancnt injunction restraining Poshala Sadanandam and others lrom interfering with her possession and obtained interim injunction or.r 08.03.201 1 for thc land in question where the incident took place.

¶42

In support of their case, the petitioners filed documents i.e., copy of suit filed by Mrs.Raiyalaxmi in O.S.No.222 of 201l, copy of interim injunction order dated 08.03.2011 and also copies of pahanies to show that Mr.Poshala Sadanandam is not in possession of the land in question where the alleged incident had taken place. It is to be noted that the alleged incident took place on 02.06.201I and interim injunction was granted by the couft in 08.03.201 l, which is very much prior to taking place of the alleged incident. Admittedly, the complainant is not the owner of the land and the allegation that Mr.Poshala Sadanandam is the owner and the complainant is the leaseholder of the land in question appears to be incorrect. As such, the complainant is not aggrieved person Apart frorn the above, the pahanies for the years I 990-91 , 2000-01 , 2002-03,2003-04,2008-09 also show the names offirst petitioner,

¶43

¶44

lather ol second petitioner and lather of sixth pctitioner and others in the posscssor column in respect ol Sy.No.75. All the above contentions ol the petitioners fortif, the lact that the petitioners were cultivating the land in question on sharing basis and even if the petitioners have entered into the land as atleged by the first respondent, the same is not an unauthorized entry. There is no necessity for them to damage the fencing wire and^poles. In addition to the above, the petitioners did not commit any offence, or intimidate, insult, or annoy, any person in possession of the property. In fact, the person who is allegedly in possession of the subject land is not proved to be in possession and an aggrieved person having any right over the land where the incident took place.

¶45

Even if the allegations contained in FlR/complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie^{constittteany of the ingredientsof the offences alleged.} Moreover, the allegations in the charge sheet and complaint/FlR do not constitute any of the cognizable offences and permitting the proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶46

¶47

Hence, I am ol'the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners u,ould be driving them to face prosecution and it would ceitainly arnount to harassment to the petitioners to undergo the rigour oi trial. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A- I to A- I 2.

¶48

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-12 in C.C.No.266 of 20i l, on the file of the Ill-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal, are hereby quashed.

¶49

Perrdir-rg miscellaneous petitions, ilany, stand closed.

¶50

SD/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR ( ll' //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

't. The lll Judicial First Class^{Magistrate'at Warangal'}

¶53

The Station^{HouseOfficer, Police Station' Mamnoor'Warangal'}

¶54

Two CC to^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourtFor TheStateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶55

One CC^{to SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]}

¶56

5 One CC^{to SRI ALLADI RAVINDER Advocate[OPUC]}

¶57

Two CD^CoPies

¶58

One sPare^CoPY.

NPJ<tr

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510712022

ORDER

'i
l trL
(
(.-
2 g AUE 2['l?
a=)
)a

¶64

CRLP.No.11325 ot 2013

¶65

LLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

Singarapu Yellaiah, v. Katicuri Rajamallaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singarapu Yellaiah, v. Katicuri Rajamallaiah

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

D.Krishna Prasad, Nalgonda Dt., Vs State, Thr Pp., Hyd and Anr.

Patnam Srinivasan, Prakasam Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

Smt P. Rajeshwari and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Singarapu Uppalaiah and 4 Others Vs Katkuri Rajamallaiah and Another

N.Ram Mohan, Hyd., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Kola Swapna