Allowed

Pathem Damodher v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jan 2023CRLP/6185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings for criminal trespass and intimidation in a civil dispute over land. The court held that since both parties had sold the disputed plot and neither was in possession the question of criminal trespass did not arise.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner/Accused in C.C.No. 147 of 2021 are quashed; criminal petition allowed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pathem Damodher Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF^JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6185 OF^2o22

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pathem Damodher, S/o late Devaiah, Aqe: 52^{years, Occ: Govt.Employee,} Rl/o H.No. 8-3-10/1; Katta Rampur, Kaiim"nagar Town^{and District.}

¶8

,.. PETITIONERYACCUSEO

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O. of P.S. Karimnagar^{I Town, Rep. by} its P.P., High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

Kakkera Satyanarayana Rao, S/o Prabhakar Rao, Age.^{50 years, Occ..} Bussiness, Ryo H.Nb. 10-1-505/1, Bhagyanagar, Karimnagar^{Town and} District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may} be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 147 ol^{2021 on the file of ll} Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnagar.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 oF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C piaying that^{in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Court may} be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 147^{of 2021 on the file of ll} Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnrgar^{including personal} appearance of the Petitioner.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri P. GlRl} KRISHNA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional^{PublicProsecutor S.} SUDERSHAN, on behalf of the Respondent No.^'1 and of^{Sri GUMMALA} BHASKER REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'I3LE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER CRIMIIIAL PETITION No.6185 OF 2o22

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminrrl Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petiti,rner/Accused in C.C.No.l47 ol 2021 on the file of II Add tional Judicial First Class N{agistrate, Karimnagar.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the 2"d respondent filed a complaint stating that this petitioner has lrespassed into the propert.' which was owned by his brcther-in-1aw. When questionerl, the petitioner had threatenecl the 2"d respondent. It is alleged by the 2.d respondent tha.t a plot was purchased in 51 .No"947 to an extent of 330 sq.yds from his predecessor and tereafter, sold the said land to ,rne P.Pavan Kumar on 13.09.2019, who is his brother-in-law rurd the said person is a resilent of USA. On 23.1O.2O2O, he r:eceived information that some persons had trespassed i-rto '-he plot that was sold to his brother-in-law and the said t.respassers were one N.Sridrar and N.Sathish. When ques:ir:rne.d, they informed that the petitioner herein has sold t-hrrlr the plot.

¶22

¶23

¶24

Thereafter, both the persons i.e., Sridhar and Sathi.sh made a phone call to this petitioner who went to the said plot and threatened the 2"d respondent with dire consequences, for which reason, complaint was filed, resulting in the charge sheet being filed for the offence under Sections 447 and 506 of IPC.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are civil disputes in respect of the said land and this petitioner was rightful owner of the said plot. The question ol trespassing into his own land does not arise. Accordingly, requested to allow the petition by quashing the proceedings against him in CC No.l47 of 2027.

¶26

On the other hand, Sri Gummala Bhasker Reddy appearing for the 2"d respondent would submit that the petitioner had intentionally trespassed into the plot of the 2"a respondent, who is rightful owner and threatened, for which reason, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation, which was

¶27

¶28

rightly done by the police by tiling charge shee! arrrl prayed to dismiss the petit ion.

¶29

Having perrsed ttre record, the petitioner ha-<l purchased the said plot anC sold it to two persons namely -( ridhar and Sathish, who ar,: brothers. The 2"d respondent had also sold the very same plot to his brother-in-law nanrely P.Pavan Kumar. There ar e pending civil disputes and as on the date of the alleged ofl ence, neither the petitioner n(.,r the 2nd respondent are^(,wrrers of the said plot. Both of thern have sold the p1ot. even according to the police invesr.igation. The persons who arr, said to be the owners of the plrl' i.t:., Pavan Kumar to whorr the plot was sold by the 2"d rer;pondent nor Sridhar and Sr.thish, to whom the plot was scld by the petitioner are v "itnesses in the said case. Wtren both the petitioner and t re compiainant do not own the r;aid plot, the question of crin Linal trespass does not arise an,l a,lsro in the back ground of t he said persons to whom the plot rrras sold not being examined in the present case.

¶30

¶31

It amounts to criminal trespass when one enters into property of another, who is in possession, with intention to commit al offence or to intimidate or insuit or annoy any person in possession of such property. The 2"a respondent, admittedly, sold the said property, for which reason, it cannot be said that he was in possession of such property. The petitioner had gone to the said premises on being called by the purchasers of the said plot and there upon an altercation ensued. There are no specific threats that were narrated by the 2"d respondent. It appears to be an altercation in the back ground of the civil disputes pending with respect to the said land. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor the 2"d respondent are possessors of the said land. No useful purpose would be served in prosecuting this petitioner. For the said reasons of non examination of any of the purchasers, continuance of the prosecution is of no avail to the prosecution.

¶32

In the result, the proceedings against petitioner/Accused in C.C.No. 147 of 2O2l on the {ile of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar, are hereby^quashed.

¶33

--r-

¶34

According y, the Crimina-l^petition is allowe,l. As a sequel

¶35

thereto, miscell tneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

assrsrrifl-Ji5AV{XA //rRUE coPY// sEcroN #i,"=*

¶37

One Fai Copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER (For His Lordships' Kind Perusal)

¶38

To,

¶39

The ll Additi:nal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimragar, Karimnagar District.

¶40

The Station House Officer, KNR-I Town Police Station, Krrimnagar District. 3. 11 LR Copir s

¶41

The Under S;ecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justce and Company Affairs, New Delhi

¶42

The Secrete ry, Telangana Advocates' Association Librar)', High Court Buildings, H lderabad

¶43

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. iOUT)

¶44

One CC to iri P. GlRl KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to { ri GUMMALA BHASKER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD CoJ'ies.

Njb .,,-

HIGH COUTIT

KS,J

DATED:181o112023

ORDER

, ._4-
A
(
S lr Jlllzon

¶53

CRLP.No.6'185 of 2022

¶54

ALLOWING I HE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶55

@ \o'
v
'11t

Pathem Damodher v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathem Damodher v. The State of Telangana

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

Singham Kondal and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Bathina Mohan Sandeep Vs The State of Telangana

Saud Ul Haq Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Jaffar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Md.Ghouse , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Manusaran Reddy Vs Smt. Battu Vasantha