Allowed

Singarapu Uppalaiah and 4 Others v. Katkuri Rajamallaiah and Another

Telangana HC15 Jul 2022CRLP/11413/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for criminal trespass and causing an offence. The court quashed the case, holding that the complainant was not the owner or in possession of the land and that the allegations did not prima facie constitute cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 142 of 2011 are quashed.

Singarapu Uppalaiah and 4 Others Vs Katkuri… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRtMtNAL PET|TION NO: 11413 OF 20,t3

¶6

Between:

¶7

Singarapu Uppalaiah S/o Komuraiah, age 60 years, occ: Agriculture 2. Singarapu Komuraiah, S/o Komuraiah, age 57 years, occ: Agriculture

¶8

Singarapu Sambaiah, S/o Komuraiah, age 35 years, occ: Agriculture

¶9

Chaganti Uppalaiah, S/o Bakkaiah, age 50 years, occ: Agriculture

¶10

Kalakotla Yellaiah, S/o Komuraiah occ: Agriculture

¶11

(All are R/o Alipuram village Mahabubnagar Mandal Warangal District)

¶12

AND

¶13

...PET|T|ONER/ Al to AS

¶14

Katkuri Raiamallaiah,..S/o Balaiah, age 60.. years,. _Occ: Agriculture, R/o Narsimtiutagudem Vilage M;;io;r ilZ"no"i wrrrngat District. -

¶15

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶16

State of Ap., Rep by its public prosecutor High Court of Ap., Hyderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc No.14212011 on the file of lll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Warangal

¶19

CRLPMP. NO: 10259 oF 2013

¶20

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition ,the High court may be pleased to stay of a, further proceedings incruding personar appearance of the petitioners in cc No.14212011 on the fire of ilr Additionar Judiciar First crass Magistrate., at Warangal , pending quash petition.

¶21

This Pertition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P PRAEIHAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri ALLADI RTWINDER ,Advocate for the Respondent No. 1

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE^{A.SANTHOSHREDDY}

¶24

CRL.P.No.l1413 oF²⁰¹³

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This criminal petition is^{filed under Section 482 Cr.P.Cto} quash the proceedings against the^{petitioners/A-Ito A-5 in} C.C.No.l42 of 2011, on the file of^{the lll-AdditionalJudicial} Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal.

¶27

Heard leamed counsel for the^{petitioners, leamed counsel for} the first respondent/complainant and^{learned Assistant Public} Prosecutor for the respondent/State.^{Perusedthe record.}

¶28

The second respondent filed a complaint^{against petitioners/} A-1 to A-5 before police alleging^{that he is absolute owner and} possession of the land an extent of Acs.l-20^{Gts., in Sy.No.75of} Allipuram Village, which was^{given to him as Pasupu Kumkuma} by his in laws and he is in^{possessionof the same since 40 years} and doing agriculture. That on^{26.02.201Iat about 03:00 pm., the} petitioners caused damage to his bore well and^{when he obstructed} them, they caught hotd of his collar, beat^{and abused him and also} threatened to kill him. Based on the above^{complaint, the police} ./

¶29

¶30

registere d a case in Cr.No.15 of 201 I againsi A- 1 to A-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 421 ,323 and 506 read r.vith SerJion 34 IPC and took up investigation. After completion of inves tigation, the police filed charge shect in C.C.No. 1 1 4 ol 2011 fol the above stated oflences against A-l to A-5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed present criminal petition.

¶31

Lr:amed counsel for the petitioners contends that the complai eant is neither connected with the land in question and cultivating it nor are his in laws owners ol the said land and therefor,:, the question of petitioners interfering with his possessiott and causing damage to the borewell does not arise. LIe lurther contend; that originally one Kallepalli Chandraiah was the original owner of the land in question and the after his death,^{the said} propert) devolved to the vendors of Mrs. Nlacharla Rajyalaxmi, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed.

¶32

L:amed counsel further contends that the first petitioner and his lamily members are rvorking in the land of Mrs.Rajyalaxmi on sharing basis and while so, one Poshala Sadanandam and others

¶33

t -have started interfering with the possession of the first petitioner

¶34

¶35

and his t'amily mernbers, lbr rvhich thc said Mrs.l{aj1'alaxmi tlled a suit in O.S.No.222 ol 2011 befbre the ll-Junior Civil Judge, Waragnal for permanent inj unction restraining Poshala Sadanandam and others from interlering with her^possession and also obtained interim injunction. Therefbre, from the above it^is clear that neither the complainant nor the said Poshala Sadanandam are the owners of the land. The allegations made in the complaint are false and he prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A- 1 to A-5.

¶36

Leamed counsel for the petitioners also contends that the first respondent/complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioners herein and others alleging that on 02.06.2011 at about 04:00 pm, that while the second respondent along with his son was cultivating the land in Sy.No.75, the petitioners herein and others 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/-. Based on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.61 of 2011 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet in

¶37

¶38

C.C.N,r.266 of 201i for the olfences punishable under Sections 441 ,421 read with Section 34 iPC against A-l to A-12. Tlie first respondent/complainant made contradictory statement in the pi'csen - complaint that he is the owner of the land wherein in the ccmplaint in Cr.No.61 of 201 1 , he alleged tirat he has taken the Ianri ir question on lease fi'om Mr.Poshala Sadanandam and cultivating the same.

¶39

Leamed counsel for the first respondent/comp Iainant contenls that the allegations in the complaint satis8/ the ingredients of the offence alleged. A perusal of statements of the witnesr;es, coupled with the allegations in the complaint prima facie^{p,oes to show that the caseagainst the petitioners} can^be procee,led ^,ith. There are no justifiable grounds to allow the criminal petition and prays for dismissing the criminal petition

¶40

I-eamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for the second responrlent/State contends that the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable in nature and the truth or otherwise ol the sairj allegations can be ascertained only after full-fledged trial. a^{She prays lor dismissingthe criminal petition.}

¶41

¶42

The prosecution case is that on 26.02.20 ll at 03:00 pn.r., rhe petitioners criminally trespassed in his land and caused damage to his bore well and when he obstructed them, they caught hold of his collar, beat and abused him and also threatened to kill him.

¶43

To constitute the offence of criminal trespass under Section 441 lPC., there must be unauthorized^.entry,, or if the entry has been lawfully and legitimately obrained, there must be unlawful 'remaining', either directly or constructively, against the will 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 trespass

¶44

I l. The contention of leamed counsel for the petitioners is that neither the first respondent/complainant is the owner of the land and cultivating the same nor was the land given to him by his in laws as pasupu kumkama. 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

¶45

¶46

cultiv:-tine the land on sharing basis, Mr.poshala Sadanandam and others have stafied intcrlering with the possession ol the first petitiojler and his farnily ntembers for. which the said Mrs.Rajyalaxmi filed a suit in O.S.No.222 of 201I for permanent injunction restraining Poshala Sadanandam and others from interfering u,ith her possession and obtained interirn injunction on 08.03.r1011 for the land in question where the incident took place.

¶47

In supporl of their case, the petitioners filed docurnents i.e.. copy ol suit filed by Mrs.Rajyalaxmi in O.S.No.222 of 2011, copy of interim injunction order dated 08.03.20i1 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. As such, the complainant is not aggrieved person. Apart from the above, the pahanies for the years 1990-91, 2000-01, 2OOZ-03, 2003-0,+, 2008-09 also show the names other persons in the possessor column in respect of Sy.No.75 and not the first responclent/complainant. [t is clear the said persons are cultivating the lanc[ in question and even if the petitioners have entered into the land as alleged by the first respondent, the same is not an

¶48

¶49

unauthorized entry.^'l'herc is no necessity for them to damage the bore well. In addition to the above, the petitioners did not commit any oflence, 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.

¶50

Even if the allegations contained in FlR7complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie^{constituteany} cf the ingredients of 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 ollaw.

¶51

Hence, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be driving them to face prosecution and it would certainly amount to harassment to the petitioners to undergo the rigour of trial. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A- l to A-5.

¶52

¶53

I I

¶54

Accordingly, the crinrinal petition is allowed. The

¶55

proceedings agair.rsl the petitioners/A- l to A-5 in c.c.N o.r42 of 2011, on the file of the Ill_Additional Judicial Magistrate of the

¶56

First, Warangal, are hereby cluashed.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous petitions, ifany, stand closed.

¶58

SD/.K.SHYLESHI DEPUry REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶59

sEcrioili oFFtcER

¶60

To,

¶61

The Ill Additional Judicial First.Class Magistrate at Warangal.

¶62

The Station House Officer, police Statiori, d;;;

¶63

one cc to SRt. p pRABHRx4p REDDV ;;;;;. 4. Two CCs; to the pUBLlc.PROSECUTOC,'HitrrtJu"rt topucl

¶64

ror tne State of

¶65

^{Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]}

¶66

One CC io SRt ALLADT rinVrilOen, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies

T One Spare Copy

HlGH COURT

DATED:1 510712022

ORDER

I E STA 15:
21 SEP ?M2

¶74

CRLP.No.11413 of 2013

¶75

ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS o ..fu3 6

Singarapu Uppalaiah and 4 Others v. Katkuri Rajamallaiah and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singarapu Uppalaiah and 4 Others v. Katkuri Rajamallaiah and Another

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

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

Singarapu Yellaiah, Vs Katicuri Rajamallaiah

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Kola Swapna