AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the dismissal of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.64 of 2013 in C.C.No.200 of 2014 filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar seeking discharge for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and also Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents.
The second respondent lodged a complaint to the police on 30.04.2012 stating that he along with Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal inspected Narkuda Village and observed that A-1 and other owners have encroached Firangi Nala, damaged and formed the road across the C.D.Weir and abutment of the check Dam in the Nala is dismantled. It is also observed that A-1 and other owners have developed the land in survey Nos.324 and 335 by encroaching the boundaries of the Firangi Nala for about 1 km length and the soil excavated from his land dumped into the canal thereby obstructed the flow of canal. Basing on the said complaint, a case in crime No.99 of 2012 was registered for the aforesaid offences, investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4.
On appearance before the trial Court, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 filed Crl.MP.No.64 of 2013 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 07.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners of open land situated in survey Nos.324 to 332 and 334 since the year 2006 and there is no prima facie material about the involvement of A-1 to A-4, as none of the witnesses have stated in their statements that the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 were present at the scene of offence. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged damaged portions of check dam and CD weir of Firanginala have been rectified and reconstructed the same. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Ibrahimpatnam in his letter, dated 18.07.2012, informed the first respondent that the land owners have addressed all the three issues in the complaint. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against the petitioners/accused and continuation of proceedings would amount to unnecessary harassment to the petitioners and prayed to set aside the orders of the trial Court and discharge the petitioners.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits to decide the criminal revision case on merits.
The allegations of the charge-sheet discloses that the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 are the pattadars of land admeasuring Ac.216-00 guntas in survey Nos.332, 3324 and 335 of Narkuda Village. There is Firangi Nala, historical water canal which is passing through above lands. The petitioners took-up developmental activities in their land and with an intention and deliberately encroached the Government land i.e. Firangi Nala and also damaged the Check Dam, the construction cost of the check dam is Rs.65,000/-. The petitioners have encroached at a length of one kilometer in three places in survey Nos.332 to 335 at Narkuda Village and also encroached into the boundaries of Firangi Nala and obstructed the flow of water and constructed the roads. Thereby, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
The petitioners/A-1 to A-4 filed petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court stating that they have restored the Firangi Nala to its original standards.
Undisputedly, the complaint was filed by the first respondent on 30.04.2012 alleging that the petitioners have encroached the Firangi Nala and irrigation channel at Narkoda Village, Shamshabad Mandal on three issues;- that they have damaged the road across the C.D. weir, abutment of the check Dam in the Nala is dismantled and they have encroached Firangi Nala Boundaries and road is formed. On the said allegations, a case in aforesaid crime was registered. The documents filed by learned counsel for the petitioners would reveal that on 06.07.2012 the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) instructed the petitioners to repair the damaged portions of the check dam and CD weir of Firanginala passing through their lands. They have also instructed to remove the earth dumped at some places of the Nala for taking-up further necessary action. Subsequently, the petitioners alleged to have been rectified and reconstructed the damaged portions of the Check Dam of Firangi Nala and the same was informed to the Irrigation Department.
The first respondent on 18.07.2012 addressed letter to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department informing that Firangi Nala passing through the lands of the petitioners and others owners has been restored to its original standards by all the land owners. Then the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department recording the said letter addressed letter to the petitioners on 25.07.2012 intimating that the first respondent has informed to the Department that the land owners have addressed all three issues in the complaint and brought the Firangi Nala to its original standards prior to the alleged damage by the land owners. Learned counsel for the petitioners have filed three letters and a perusal of the same would reveal the information stated above.
The charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners on 18.08.2012. But, undisputedly, letters from the Department addressed by the first respondent as confirmed by the senior officials of the Irrigation Department clarifies that the Firangi Nala, which was damaged by the land owners and restored to original standards by the petitioners and other land owners by that time. The information was placed before the trial Court, but the trial Court has not taken into consideration of the repairs and restoration of Firangi Nala by the petitioners to its original standards and held that there is prima facie case to frame charges against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 and their presence to be proved and entire case would be decided only after-full fledged trial and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
It appears that the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity for the reason as rightly held by the trial Court that restoration and reconstruction of the damage caused to the Firangi Nala is subsequent to the registration of the crime and investigating Officer was not informed about the same and charge-sheet was filed routinely against the petitioners after recording statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation. When the first respondent has directed by issuing notice to the petitioners to restore the irrigation channel and when it is complied, the compliance would have been intimated by the first respondent to the Investigating Officer to drop the proceedings against the petitioners in the interest of justice. Instead of doing so, the Irrigation Department only informed to the petitioners and other land owners about rectification done by them. Infact, the letter addressed by Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department clearly shows that the particular damage to the Firangi Nala on three issues and all the three issues mentioned in the complaint have been categorically rectified and restored the Firangi Nala to its original standards by the petitioners.
For the foregoing reasons, without going into the details about prima facie case, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, considering the fact that encroachment and damage caused to the Firangi Nala and irrigation channel and the alleged incident pertains to the year 2012 and all the three issues stated above have been addressed by the petitioners and other land owners before the completion of investigation in response to the letter addressed by the Irrigation Department and accepting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4, I am of the view that driving the petitioners once again to undergo rigmarole of trial would certainly cause harassment to them. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to be discharged for the alleged offences.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order, dated 07.09.2017, is set aside. Consequently, the Crl.MP.No.64 of 2013 in C.C.No.200 of 2014 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, filed by the petitioners under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 are discharged for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and also Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.