Dismissed

Kolla Madhava Reddy v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024CRLP/6488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of Criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings in Land Grabbing Act case regarding alleged encroachment on government surplus land. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent that quashing requires preliminary consideration of cognitive offence disclosure rather than merits of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed. Appearance of petitioner before trial court dispensed with on adjournments.

Kolla Madhava Reddy Vs the State of Telangana and Another — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6488^{OF 2014}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kolla Madhava Reddy, S/o. K.Gal^{Reddy, Occ:Business, Managing D^iiec]or,} M/s. K.M.R.Estatees ind Builders^{Pvt., Ltd., Khajaguda R/o. Plot ano.38,Park} View Enclave, Manovikasnagar, Bowenpally,^{Secunderabad.}

¶8

...PETITIONER/ SOLE ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by^{PUblicProsecutor,HighCourt through SHO,} P.S., Raidurgam Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

Bandi Ganesh,, S/o. Papaiah,^{Occ Village Revenue Officer Gachibowli} Village, Serilingampally.Mandal,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict R/o. H.No.3-40'} lbrah-imbagh G;chibovi/li Village, Serilingampally^Mandal, Egng-q1"_9Oy .- DiSKiCt. ..RESPONDENTS /COMPLAINANT

¶12

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^{proceedings in C.C.No.42 of 2013'on the file of the} Principal Junior civil Judge^{-cum- Judicial FirstclassMagistrate (Land Grabbing} Act), Ranga Reddy District at^{L.B.Nagarin CrimeNO.2B3of 2013 of P.S.'} Raidurgam Ranga ReddY District.

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014^{(CRLPMP.NO:5995 0F 2014)}

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P .C., prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings in C.C.No42 of 2013, on the file of the} Principal Junior civil Judge^{-cum- Judicial FirstclassMagistrate (Land Grabbing} Act),Ranga Reddy District at^{L.B.Nagar in CrimeNo.2B3 of 20't3;ofP.S.,} Raidurgam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri SRINIVAS} VELAGAPUDI, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG)on} behalf of the Respondent No.1^{and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2}

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

{'. r

THE HCINOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6488 OF 2014

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.42 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial I Class Magistrate (Land Grabbing Act), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶23

Heard Sri Srinivas Velgapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.Ganesh, Iearned Assistant pubtic Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 was working as Village Revenue Officer, Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging t.llat the land in Sy.No.2 to an extent of Ac. i.06 guntas and Sy.No.7 to an extent of Ac. 1. 14 guntas situated at Gachibowli village was declared as surplus land vide the orders of Special Ofhcer and competent authority, Urban land ceiling, Hyderabad, dated 1O.O3.2O08 in CC No.H1l5306/1976 and the possession of the 1.-2 said land was taken into Government c-ustody 9n -0.3.!,_OOS and the land is kept vacant.

¶25

¶26

During physical verification of the^{Governmentlands in} Gachibowli village by t1le Government^{Officials,it wasnoticed} that the accused trespassed into the^{said landswith a criminal} intention, taken the land by^{erecting blue sheets aroundit.} Basing on the said facts, Crime No.283 of^{2013 is registered} against the accused for the^{offencespunishableunder} Sections.447, 427 of Indian^{Penal Code and Sections 4(1) and} 5(1) of Land Grabbing Act.

¶27

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submittedthat the} petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.KMR^{Estates and} Builders Private Limited and is the absolute^ownerand possessor of the alleged land situated at Gachibowli^village, Serilingampally Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District. It is further} submitted that the charge sheet^{does not disclose as to on what} basis the allegations of encroachment is^{made against the} petitioner. The orders passed in IA No.355 of^{2013 in O.S} No.212 of 2013 hted by^{the petitionerherein against respondent} No.3 and Government^{of A.P' was allowedafter a keen contest} clearly holding that^{the petitioneris inpossessionand} enjoyment of the^{subject property.} It^{is furthersubmittedthat} the said company^{also made} an application^{for regularization of} the said Ac.1.20^{guntas of} land in Sy^{No'2 of Gachibowlivillage.}

¶28

¶29

¶30

The Special Officer, ULC, Hyderabad after considering the application of the vendor of the said company, issued regularization proceedings dated 07.06.2OlO vide No.H21455/ 115l2006 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.411, dated 11.05.2010 of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Uc.lll) Department. Therefore, he seeks to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶31

Opposing the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that unless and until a full-fledged trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶32

(

¶33

7 . Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and relying upon the decision passed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othersr, this Court is of the opinion that the Court while^quashing the F.I.R., by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to consider whether the allegations in the F.l.R disclose the commission of a cognizable offente or not; the Court is not required to consider on merits, whether or not, the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court has to '1zozt1^{+ s.c.R.1044}

¶34

¶35

permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the F.l.R. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Petition at this stage and the Criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioner, before the trial Court, is dispensed with on each and every adjournment. However, the petitioner shall appear before the trail Court as and when specifically required. The Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternate remedies, as available under law.

¶37

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSIS T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶40

CTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial^{I ClassMagiskate} (Land Grabbing Act), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶43

The Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station,^Cyberabad.

¶44

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the^{State of Telangana at} Hyderabad.

¶45

OneCCto SRI SRINIVASVELAGAPUDI, Advocate[OPUCI

¶46

Two CD Copies

Pcsd/gh (Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211012024

ORDER

,r
q
v
orj) 03 rrB 2[25
r.t
* i) s PATc

¶54

CRLP.No.6488 of 2014

¶55

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶56

8rd+
&*

Kolla Madhava Reddy v. the State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolla Madhava Reddy v. the State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. B.Vasanthi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Mrs. B. Vasanthi, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Mrs. B.Vasanthi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Manda Raju, Medak Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Thumpari Usha Rani, Vs Kuchana Thirupathi

N.Suresh, Secunderabad., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.