Shaik Moosamia vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „the Cr.P.C.‟) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.265 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, „the I.P.C.‟).

The case of the petitioner, in substance, is that the the subject land does not belong to Respondent No.2, civil disputes are pending and, accordingly, the vendee of the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2020 and the same is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi. The petitioner has been cultivating the land for the past several years. Even according to the complaint, Respondent No.2 is not in possession of the land and he is residing in Nandyal Town. Since the petitioner has been cultivating the land for the past several years, the allegation does not constitute an offence under Section 447 of I.P.C. In view of the civil disputes, Respondent No.2 lodged a report containing false averments and, as such, continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

As per the version of the prosecution, Respondent No.2 is the absolute owner of land in an extent of Ac 3-12 cents Sy.No.17/2 and he succeeded to the same from his ancestors and during his absence, the petitioner encroached upon his land and committed the alleged offences.

Heard Sri Habibulla Shaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri Krishna Kishore Bhatraju, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

As seen from the record, based on the report of Respondent No.2, a case in Cr.No.149 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 506 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating officer laid a charge sheet in C.C.No.265 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District.

It is not in dispute that one Chirupalli Anjaiah filed suit in O.S.No.28 of 2020 against Respondent No.2 and six (06) others seeking declaration of title and, as per the version of the plaintiff, in the said suit, he purchased the disputed land from the petitioner vide agreement of sale with possession deed dated 10.07.2018 and since then he has been cultivating the said land and without there being any right over the plaint schedule property, respondent No.2 and six others therein have been interfering with his possession and as such, he filed the said suit. It is also not in dispute that the said suit is pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi.

As seen from the report of the Respondent No.2, admittedly, he is not resident of Nandyal and the allegations levelled by the Respondent No.2 against the petitioner are that without there being any right, petitioner ploughing the land so as to grab the same and upon coming to know of the said fact, he went to the scene of offence and the petitioner then threatened him to implicate in criminal case. The contents of the charge sheet also reveal the same.

It is needless to say that to attract the punishable section against the petitioner, the prosecution must place material on record to establish the ingredients of the said offences,

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

The mere existence of a civil dispute does not, as a matter of law, bar criminal proceedings if the allegations independently disclose the commission of a criminal offence. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether, on the allegations and material placed on record, the essential ingredients of Sections 448 and 506 of the Code are made out against the petitioner.

Section 448 of the Code applies when the requirements of house-trespass are satisfied. Section 506 provides punishment for criminal intimidation, which necessarily requires an allegation of threat with the intention contemplated by Section 503 of the Code. The material placed before this Court, when considered as a whole, does not disclose specific and legally sufficient particulars showing that the petitioners committed house-trespass with the requisite the requisite criminal intent or that the petitioner issued a threat amounting to criminal intimidation in the manner contemplated by law. General allegations arising out of a property dispute, without the necessary factual particulars constituting the ingredients of the offences, cannot, by themselves, justify continuation of criminal proceedings.

It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court ordinarily proceeds on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying it and does not conduct a detailed enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations. However, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, or where the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised to secure the ends of justice.

The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction were authoritatively explained by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others^{33.Supp (1) SCC 335}. Among the recognised categories are cases where the allegations, taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence; where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected do not disclose the commission of an offence; where the allegations are inherently improbable; where there is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings; and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or is instituted with an ulterior motive.

The present case falls within the permissible parameters of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The material placed on record, even if accepted at their face value, does not furnish sufficient factual foundation to establish the essential ingredients of Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code. The dispute concerning the property, including the rival claims of title and possession, is predominantly civil in character and are already pending adjudication before the competent civil Court. The continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the circumstances of the case, would serve no legitimate criminal law purpose and would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used for adjudicating a civil property dispute.

This Court is conscious that the power under Section 482 of the Code is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The Court is not recording any final finding regarding the title or lawful possession of the subject property, nor is it expressing any opinion on the merits of O.S.No.28 of 2020. The observations made herein are confined only to the question whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.265 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District disclose the commission of the offences alleged so as to warrant their continuation.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case constituting the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code against the petitioner/accused. Continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.265 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District would therefore amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the relief sought.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.265 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi, Prakasam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.