A petition to quash proceedings for criminal trespass and mischief charges was dismissed because the court found witness statements contained material supporting the offences and that the petitioner's objections were mixed fact-law questions unsuited to a Section 482 quash petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\
[32ee l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2281 OF 2023
Between:
It/.A.Nayeem, S/o Late M.A Shakoor, Aged about 54 years, Occ - Business, R/o H.No.23-1-306, Jaffer Lane, Kotla Alijah, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
AND
...Respondents/Complainants
Petition under Section 482 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 call for criminal proceedings records in C.C.No.2712 of 2021 , on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Under sections 447,427 lPC, and quash the same against the petitione r/accu sed No.1 .
l.A. NO: 'l OF 2023
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 in C.C.No.2712 of 2021 , on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Under sections 447, 427 lPC, and quash the same against the petitioners/ accused No.2 and 3, tillpending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.
This Petition comrng on for hearing, uponperusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri K Harish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2
The Court made the following: ORDER
'.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITIION No.2281 of 2O23
ORDER:
The present Criminai Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2712 of 2O2l on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
Z
persons criminally trespassed into the said piot and damaged the existing cement piliars and rron shatters Basing on the said compiaint, police have registered a case, issued FIR and investigated into the same. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected the development agreement executed by the accused No.l in favour of accused No.2 in respect of the subject plot entrusting the same to accused No.2 for development purpose.
3
investigation, the InvestigatingOflicer has laid the charge sheet before the Courtbelow and the truth or otherwise woutd be revealed onlyafter full-fledgedtrial'Therefore'he prays this Court to dismissthe petition'
In this regard, itis relevantto rely upon the judgment 1n of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt ofIndiapassed Cr1.A.No.579 of 2Ol9dated O2'04'2OI9 in the case of Deaendra PrasadSingl. Vs' State of Bihar &'Anr"as
follows:-
"12.5o far as thesecond ground is concerned' u)e are of tLe uieuthat the High Court ttthileheaing the apptication und.erSection 482 of the Cr'P'C'had nojurisdiction toappreciatethe statement of the u.titnesses and recorda findingthat there utere inconsistencies in theirstatements and'therefore' there utas noprima faciecase madeout ogainst respondent No.2. In ouruiettt,this couldbe done onlg in the tiol uhile d.ecidirLgthe issues on the meits or/ and- by the AppeltateCourt u-thile deciding the
4
appedl arising out of the final order passed bg the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.
1 3. In uiew of tLe foregoing di.scussion, ute allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its oiginal fite for being proceeded uith on merits in accordance u.tith lotu.
"19. After petusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the leanted senior counsels on both sides, ue are of the uiew that the impugned order passed bg the High Court is not sustain.able. In a petition filed under Sectiott a82 of Cr.P.C., tLrc High Court hos recorded findinqs on seueral disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused k to be tested after appreciating the euidence during tial. The uery fact tl1rlt the High Court, in this case, uent into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.8.1., and the defence put forth bg the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Couft has exceeded its pouter, uhile exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
f
5
"It is too late in the dag to seekreference to ang authoitg for thepropositionthat uhileinuoking the pouer under Section482Cr.P.C forquashinga complaint or a charge, the Courtshould not embark upon an enquiry into the ualiditg ofthe euidence auailable. All thot the Court shouldsee is as fo uthether tLere are allegations inthe complaint uhich formthe basis forthe ingredientsthdt corlstitute certain offences comploined of.The Courtmag alsobe entitled to see (i) uhether thepreconditions requisite fortaking cognizance haue been complied u'tith or not; and (ii) u.thether the allegationscontainedin the -.complaint, euen if accepted inentiretg,toould not i\onstitute the offence alleged.
6
i L I I I : It I I L !
The question uhether the appellant uill be a.ble to proue the allegations in a manner knoun to lantL toouLd arise onlg at a later stage.
1 1 . In view of the discussion made herein before, this 1n Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings C.C.No.27l2 of 2O2l on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajencira Nagar. The petitioner/ accused No. 1 is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the triai Court. The personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel. Further the petitioner sha-ll appear before the trial Court as and when his presence is required.
'7
t2 Accordingly, this Criminal Petitionis dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aly, shallstand
closed
Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
ry_-
ABK./pst
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2810112025
ORDER
( (r TI,/€
3
,o
5
04 AUE rus
!.)
CRLP.No.2281 of 2023
DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION
1
1N 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 427 and 447 IPC in C.C.No.2712 of 2021 against accused No.1 can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether allegations lacking specific overt acts justify quashing at the Section 482 stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & AnrRelied on¶7
Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Deaendra Prasad Singl. Vs' State of Bihar &'Anr
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind KhannaRelied on¶8
Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aruind Khanna
M. Jaganathi v. K.R. Meenakshi & AnrRelied on¶9
Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 order dated 02.12.2019 in the case of M.Jaganthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr
4 provisions across 2 enactments
I.A. Nayeem
The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad
Sri. Sartaj Hussain
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
