Dismissed

Katikireddy Sriram Reddy v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023CRLP/9509/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of criminal proceedings for land encroachment, directing the magistrate to conclude the trial expeditiously as a charge-sheet was filed, noting criminal remedies are not barred by parallel civil suits.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; the Court directed the lower court to commence and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

Katikireddy Sriram Reddy Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURTFOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA ATI{YDERABAD

¶2

TIIESDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

Criminal Petiti on No.9509 of 20L5

¶6

Between:

¶7

Katikireddy Sriram Reddy, S/ o l_ate K. Ayyapu Reddy, Aged about 57 years, occ Business, R/o H.No.2-61 / t, Nadurgir"i ViXrg;|'S;i;;;;;; rra,i#rl, Ranga Reddy Districr_

¶8

AND

¶9

...petitioner/ Accused.

¶10

, S."-,?l1l-".,f Telangana,.rep., by public prosecutor, High Courr at tiyclerabad, Hyderabad. 2. Molkat Venkaf Reddy, l/^o_!!q1{ra neddy, Aged T0years,Occ A_griculturs R/o H.No.2-21-1178 / 4 / 5, trleiar Nxttatcurita, irii"u- noua, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Respondents.

¶12

Petition under Section 4g2 ol 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 CC.No.2g 4 of 201.5 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad.

¶13

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 (CRLPMP. NO: 9547 OF 2015)

¶14

Petition under Section 4g2 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 stay all further proceedings in CC.No-284 of 2075 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magisrrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad.

¶15

¶16

I.A. NO: lOF 20'16(CRLPMP. NO:463 OF 2016) Between:

¶17

Yelmat Venkat Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged 70 years, Occ Agriculture, R,ro H.No.2-21-1118/ 4/5, New Nallakunta, Shivam Road, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶18

And

¶19

..Petitioner/ Respondent No.1

¶20

The.State of Telangana, rep.,by Public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature^{for the State} of Telangana and the Sate of AIp.

¶21

Katiktueddy sriram ged{y_,s/o La." " ff;#lt"#(}:frH1Tji3;' years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.2-51 / 1, Nad urlual Villige. Saroomagar Mandal Ranga Reddy Dishict.

¶22

.Respondent/ Petitioner.

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitiory the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim s tay granted in Crl.P.No.9509 of 2015 dated 09.10.2015.

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate for the petihioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri V.Hariharary Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.9509 oF 2015

¶30

This Criminal petition is {-rled by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Criminal procedure Code (for short Cr.p.C.,) seeking to quash the proceedings against him in cc No.2g4 of 2015 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad.

¶31

Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vizarath AIi, learned Assistant public prosecutor, representing learned public prosecutor for the State/ respondent No. 1 and Sri Rama Krishna, learned counsel on beharf of sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent. perused the record.

¶32

Crime No.75 of 2015, which was after investigation numbered as CC No.284 of 2Ot5 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad for the alleged offences punishable under Section s 447 and 422 of IpC, was registered on the strength of complainant lodged by the 2nd respondent complaining that Sri Ram Reddy and p.Eswaraiah, purchased the land admeasuring Ac.Z-06 guntas in Sy.No_71 of brother of respondent No.2, adjacent to the land of 2"d respondent and after losing 70 to 12 guntas of land towards road, Sri Ram Reddy criminally trespassed and encroached upon into his land, tried to construct a wall and dump cow

KI%

Pagc 2^of4

dung and^{accordingly,the 2'd respondentgot surveyed the landand} found that^{30 guntas of land was occupied by the said Sriram Reddy} and hence,^{the 2'd respondent obtained injunction order videOS} No. 160^{of 2015, on the {ile of the learned Principat Junior Civil Judge'} Ibrahimpatnam,^{Cyberabad on 09'O4'2O15and got it served on the said} Sriram^{Reddy.Apart from initiating civilproceedings'the 2"d} respondent^{got registered the present criminal case'}

¶37

The petitioner^{frtedthe presentcriminal petitionseeking to} quash the^{proceedingsin CC No'284of 2015 mainlycontending that} without there^{beingany overt actson his part or ingredients attracting} the offences^{under Section 447 and 427 of IPC' the 2"d respondent'} only with^{a view to harass him' filed the present criminalcaseas well} as the civil^{suit and hence, continuationof the same is nothing but} abuse^{of processof law' On the other hancl' learned counsel for the 2"d} as the learned^{AssistantPublic Prosecutor} respondent^aswell vehementlY^oPPosed t]le petition^{contending that there is ample} evidence^{in the form of stJtements of witnessesand other materialand} hence, the^{petitioner cannotbe discharged withoutfacing trial'}

¶38

It is further^{contendedonbehalfof the Petitioner that'} having^{succeeded in obtaining injunctionorder'on the very next day} the 2.d^{respondent got registeredthe presentcriminal case with a view}

¶39

Pagc 3 of 4

¶40

to harass the petitioner and [hat so far as the allegations regarding title, boundaries, encroachment and occupation of the land is concerned, they are the subject matters of civil suit and having invented civil remedies the 2"d respondent cannot initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioner. He further contended that in this view of the matter, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner are nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, seeks to allow the petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent submits that seeking civil remedies will not bar the 2"d respondent from initiating criminal proceedings against the overt acts of the petitioner as he went to the extent of encroaching into the land of the 2"d respondent, trespassed into the land, tried to erect a compound wall and dumped the cow dung. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that after completion of detailed investigation, the police have laid charge-sheet and the criminal law is set in motion and the incriminating material found during investigation has to be tested and corroborated with the evidence to be adduced during trial and hence, at this premature stage, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by respective counsel, this Court is of the considered view that since the matter is pending from the year 2Ol5 and charge-sheet is already been filed it is

¶42

Page 4 of4

¶43

apt to direct^{the Courtbelowto commence'conduct and conclude the} lt is needless^{to mentionthat the} trial as expeditiously^{as possible} petitioner is^{at libertyto work out the remedies as availableunderlaw'} The presence^{of the petitioner, before the Court belowis} hereby dispensed^{with untiland unless his presenceis required}

¶44

With the above^{observations,this criminalpetition} ls Miscellaneous^{applications, if any pending'shall stand} disposed^of dismissed.

¶45

//TRUE^COPY//

¶46

SD/-P.GOWRI^SHANKAR --Asslsrevr REGISTRAR d/

¶47

SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

lTliLY"I1."Ifi1""':ra,}l:g,Txt?"'ll:Hi['"ffi^;:E]i'i""11; ;. o""^{cEi; s.i n,i"s"qu"",i jX5r"t"oi&tjLloo",}

¶50

l. 3ffi ??':.tilyiHit:'?;J*,i.i,^{iien court Buildinss' Hvderabad} [OPUCI 6. Two CD^CoPies

ICK \ -v

HIGHCOURT

DATED:12/09 /2023

ORDER

ST TE oA
{
7
a t J J\t 1t1\ .=-),6)
o I
t D E ? C

¶56

CRLP.No.9509 of 2015

¶57

Disposing of the Criminal Petition.

¶58

<br>1>
,

Katikireddy Sriram Reddy v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katikireddy Sriram Reddy v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp 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

Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs Smt. Tarannum Fatima

Yane Venkata Narayana Vs the State of Telangana

Shaik Khadeer Vs the State of A.P.

Patnam Sai Kumar, Dilsukhnagar Vs P.S., Uppal, Hyd

Hanuman Joshi, Secbad Vs M. Dilip Kumar Desai, Secbad and Ano

Asra Kamal Vs Syed Shahabuddin