Allowed

Sri. Anjaiah Myla v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jun 2024CRLP/9515/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for trespass and damaging boundary stones. The Court noted a significant discrepancy between the alleged time of offense and the eye witness statement, rendering the prosecution case doubtful, and held that the matter is a proper matter for civil court. The petition was disposed of immediately.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 1178 of 2021 were quashed against the petitioners.

Sri. Anjaiah Myla Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANAATHYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE^{ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO^{THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADISRIDEVI}

¶5

cRl^{MINALPETITIONNO:95150F 2021}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Aniaiah^{MYlaS/o Komuraiah}

¶8

i. a;ik;;il Mytu'slo^Rnlriuh

¶9

...petirioners/Accused Nos.1 &²

¶10

AND

¶11

.1. The state of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High coiurt for the^state ;i i";;";r'ai Hy-derauao^{rhroughpotice stationLingata Ghanpur, warangal} District .' Respondent NHJo^{l/Complainant}

¶12

Z. Sii V"nf.at.swarlu^{Nalla S/o Kondaiah Occ: Agriculture, R/oDevaruppala} - Mandal,^{WarangalDistrict..Rspondent No.2/Defacto Complainant} "iii"g" "";

¶13

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.cprayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased} io L"rr to, the records^{relating to CC No. 1178 ol 2021 Crime No' 18'l of 2021 of} ir"f,* SLti"" iinlrf,^{Ghanfiur, Warangal District,TS on the file of the learned} .luJic,af iirst Clasi^{Magistrateat Jangaon,TS and quash the same against the} petitioners/Accused No.^{1 and 2'}

¶14

lA No.1 of 2021

¶15

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the lvlemorandu m of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased} to stay all further p roceedings^{including appearanceof the petitioners AccusedNo1} and 2 in CC No. 1178 of^{2021 C.imeNo. 181 of 2021 of Police StationLingala} hanpur, Warangal District, TS on the file^{of the learned Judicial FirstClass} istrate, at Jang aon, TS pending disposal^{of the above criminalpetition}

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the A/emorandum of} ds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{Mr. Bethi} warlu Advocate for the^{Petitioner and Assistant Public Prosecutoron behalf} spondent No.'1 and none appeared for the Respondent^{No 2}

¶17

:made the following: ORDER:

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JITWADI SRIDEVI

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9515 OF 2o27

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 178 of 2O2l on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of IPC.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1.

¶24

The petitioners are father and son, arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid C.C. The allegations against them afe that they sold some part of their land to the de facto complainant and are in possession of the remaining land and even after seliing the land, they trespassed into the land of de facto^{corlrplainant on 27.10.2021at about 02.0Op.m. and} damaged the boundary stones.

¶25

The statements of witnesses i.e., LWs.1 to 5 are filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2024. Out of the said witnesses, LWS is the sole eye witness, who has deposed that petitioners had demolished the boundary stones of the land of de facto complainant on 27.1O.2021 at around 12.00 p.m. A perusal of the statements of

¶26

these witnesses discloses that all of them, in one voice, have deposed that while selling the land^{of petitionersto the de} facto complainant, initially, a road^{face of I28 feet was fixed, which} was thereafter decreased to 120 feet. Thus, it^{appearsto be a} boundary dispute between the lald of^{petitioners and the de} .pcto^{complainant. Further,according to LW5, the eye witness,} the time of alleged offence was 12.00^{p.m. on 27.10.2021,} however, the HaIl Ticket filed^{discloses that the 2nd petitioner} has attended a written examination^{at Hyderabadon 27.1O.2021} up to 10.30 a.m., and hence, by^{the allegedtimeof incident, it is} practically not possible for him to reach the^{place of incident,} which is about 120 km away from the^{venue of examination.} Thus, the statement of eye^{witness falsifies the case of} prosecution with regard to the involvement of^{2na petitioner in} the offences alleged, which in turn,^{createsa doubt with regard} to the occurrence of the^whole incident.^{Therefore, this Courtis} of the considered view that it is a fit case to^{quash the} proceedings against the petitioners.

¶27

Accordingly, this Criminal^Petition is^{allowedquashingthe} proceedings against the petitioners in^{C.C.No.1178of 2O2l on} the hle of Judicial First Class^{Magistrate, Jangaon.Itis} needless to observe that the parties are at liberty^{to approach}

¶28

¶29

competent Civil Court for resolving the dispute with regard to

¶30

the boundaries of their lands.

¶31

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶32

closed.

¶33

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶34

To,

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

The Judicial^{First ClasslVlagistrate,at Jangaon' TS.}

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

The Station^{House Officer'Police Station Lingala Ghanpur'Warangal} District,^TS

¶39

One^{CC to Mr. BethiVenkateswarlu, Advocate (OPuC)}

¶40

Two CC^{to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate High Court for the stateof} Telangana [OUT]

¶41

Two CD^CoPies

!.'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 11.06.2024

ORDER

-( h\F- S l-^1 16-
t
I ii
!) 2 o Jl'iN L02I
t:+ ;l
,-.: ';J,
_-/-

¶47

CRLP.No. 9515 of 2021

¶48

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Sri. Anjaiah Myla v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anjaiah Myla 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

Mohammed Sarfaraz Vs State of Telangana

Chitla Vijay, Vs The State of Telangana

Kothamasu Shekar Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Enumula, Satheesh , Sathyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana and another

M. Satyanarayana Vs The State through Cbi/Acb

Chintapandu Naveen Kumar alias Theenmar Mallanna Vs The State of Telangana