Allowed

Suvarna Rajanna, Karimnagar Dt and 2 Otrs., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC3 Aug 2023CRLP/16004/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The Court held that since a civil court earlier dismissed the complainant's suit for title declaration, the criminal complaint was an attempt to cloak a civil dispute in criminal colour, constituting an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.282 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manthani were quashed.

Suvarna Rajanna, Karimnagar Dt and 2 Otrs., Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO NO:'t60 04 oF2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Suvarna Rajanna, Sio.Mahadev, aged 67 years, Occ Retired Employee, Owner of H.No.13-36/1 , Manthani Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶9

Suvarna Satynarayana, S/o. Late Mahadev, aged 62 years,R:/o. H.No. 6-90/2, Jiliellaguda, Meerpet Road, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

Suvarna Ramanna S/o. Late Mahadev, aged6Syears,fuo. H.No. 13-36/1, Nadiweedi, Manthani Proper and Mandal, Now at H.No- 1-9-1035, Postal Colony, Warangal District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSEDNoS.I to 3

¶12

nrio

¶13

The State of Telangana, represented by S.H.O. P.S., Manthani, Karimnagar District, through Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Ramadugu Sriramulu, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 45 years, Occ Priest, Rl/o. Ravulucherukatta, Manthani Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶16

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANTS

¶17

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 to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.282 of 2014 on the file of the Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Manthani of Karimnagar District.

¶18

CRL.P.MP.NO: I 7125 oF 20141

¶19

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 to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/accused no. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.282 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Manthani of Karimnagar District.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing lhe arguments of Sri.K Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petit oner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri.G.Anandam, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.16OO4 OF 2014

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

I This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4.82 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash thc proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.282 of 2Ol4 pending on the hle of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate o[ First Class, Manthanr, registered lbr the offences punishable under Sections 447,42O and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶25

2 Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Lhe lcarncd Assistarnt Public Prosecrrtor for the State and Sri G.Aaandam, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

ll The casc of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2014 at about I 1.00 am, the petitione rs herein along with some others broke open thc locks of the house bearing D.No.13-36 built in 245.8 sq. yards situated at Nadiveeclhi, Manthani. The said house initially belongcd ro one Suvarna Janakamma who is the grandmother of the petitioners who sold the same to one R.Gangadhar in the year 196'7 and thereaftcr the wife of the said Gangadhar sold the property ro one Manthina Suseela in thc year 19{15. In due course, the son o[ said Suseela by name Manthani Safyanarayana sold the property to one Loke Aravind in the year 20 13. Since Suvarna Janakamma sold the property in thc year 1967 itscll, cither she or her iegal heirs do not lrave any right over the property.

¶27

! rY:a .?1

¶28

¶29

4 lL is the I'urther :rlk:gatror.r that since the saicj Loke Aravind is a non-resident Ir-rdian, thc filst petitioner, in connivance u,ith his brolhers, crcalcd a false gilt rlced and obtained pr'rmission from the gram panchal at, u.hich, or veriltcation, was cancelled by the Divisional Pan<;hayal⁽ )fficer. l(arimangar. After handing over the property by Manthani Satvanarayana to Loke Ara",ind, the said Aravind handed over asked thc second respondent to take care of the properLy and put thc propei'tr r-rnder lock and custody of the second respondent as well ns the lathcr of the petitiont rs. While so, on 03.05.2014 at about I 1.0C ,rm, the pelitioners herein along with some others broke oyrcn thc locks of the said house and tried to construct a trn shed in thc open land and "vhen the second respondent resisted their ar'1s, they also threatened the second respondent with dire cons€'ql i^('nces, thereLry comntitted the offences stated supra.

¶30

5 The investigating officer', after complelion of in\restigalion, fi1ed the charge sheel agair-rst thc pctitioncrs for the offences punishable under Section s 447 , 42O ar-rd 506 r I w 34 of IPC. Ilence the^present criminal petitron seeking to qrrash the said proceedings.

¶31

6 The contc:ntion of the lcarned counsel for thc petitioners is that the allegations made rn the complaint do not constitute any offence, much less t].re offenccs allcqed to have been <:ommitted bv the

¶32

petitioners. He further contcndcd that the subjecr property stands in the name of the father of the petitioners and to that effect the gram panchayat had also issue a declaration certihcate. Therefore, the petitioners are the rightful owners of the subject propert5z and hence question of trespass and the other consequent offences does not arise at all. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that civil suits are pending between the parties with regard to the subject property and the suit O.S.No.2 4 of 2Ol4 filed by Loke Aravind for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the petitioners herein was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil. Judge, Manthani and hence the said Aravind is not the title holder of the subject property.

¶33

7 ln the light of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court looked into the record to ascertain whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not

¶34

8 it is an admitted fact that the suit O.S.No.24 of 2Ol4 hied by Loke Aravind for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the petitioners herein was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani after examining the relevant evidence adduced by both the parties. In that view of rhe matter and since the said Aravind failed to prove his title over the subject property the

¶35

¶36

\ - .. t!ets \ '_ \ :.,^.

¶37

complaint lodged on behalf r,1' said Aravind has no sanctity. Thc decision of the civil court is binding on the criminal court with regard to the title and owncrship of the property. Whr:n the civil court declined to declare thzrt thc s:rid Aravind is the titlr: holder in rcspect of the subject propert] , he c:;r nnot maintain the :ornplaint against fhe pelitioners. Hence, Sectjrrn 447 of IPC does not attract to the present set of facts agzrinst t.h0 pctitioners.

¶38

9 When the primary. ofIenl:c is struck off, question ol petitioners deceiving the complainant and thereby committing offence under Section 42O IPC and 506 of lP(l :rlso does not arisc.

¶39

10 In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Anr. v. Sudha Seetharaml

¶40

the Hon'ble Apcx Court held :rs follows:

¶41

Thc jurisdiction Undcr Scction 482 of the Coce of CriminaL Procedure ]ras to bc exrrcrscd u,ith care. In the r:xcrcise of its jurisdictton. a I{igh Cour c. n cxamine whcther a mattcr which is esscntially cf a civrl natl.le llas been givcn a cloak o[ a criminal oflence. Where the ingreCir.nts requircd [o constiLlrte a criminal oflence are not made out flom a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the cr:minal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of thc cour-t.

¶42

In the present case, tec son of the Appellants hErs instituted a civil suit for the rccoven ol rnoney against the l-rrs Respondent. Thc suit is pending. The firsl Respondent l'ras hlcd Lhe complaint against the Appcllants six vcars after the date of thc alleged transaction and nezrrly rhrcr, 1'cars from the hling ol the suit. The averments in the complalnt. rcad on its face, do nct disclose the ingrcdients neccssary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt iras bet:n rrade by the first Respoudent to cloak a cjvrl clisprrte with a crilnir url nature despite the absr:nce of the ingrcdients necessary tr^.onstitute a criminal offence, The complaint lilcd b1. thc Irst Rcspondent against thc Appellants

¶43

'^{(2019)16 s( c ?39}

¶44

¶45

constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.

¶46

11 The facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case cited supra. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed.

¶47

12 In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.2B2 of 2Ol4 pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani.

¶48

13 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed.

¶49

ASSrsrT(:IRE8'i'+lflk

//TRUE COPY// G.1

sEci6N oFFlcER

1 . The Judicial^{FirstClass Magistrate atJvlanthaniof Karimnagar District-} i. i'ri" 5trii".^{HoJieofricer,"Manthanipolicestation, Karimnagar District-} 5. i;; ce;t"^{Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of relanganaat}

¶54

Hvderabad.^(OUT) 4 oi,"-c-C io Sri. K.Venumad^{hav, Advocate [o PU Cl} 5 on; Ca io Sri.G.Anandam,^{Advocate [OPUC]} 6 Two CD CoPies

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/0812023

ORDER