HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7885 of 2014 Date: 30-7-2014 Between Smt. K.Amaravani … Petitioner/Accused and The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Raidurgam PS, Cyberabad, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad … Respondent J.Ravi Kumar … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7885 of 2014 Order:
The accused in First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.318 of 2014 on the file of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad seeks for the quashment of the same. The complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner allegedly committed the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
2. The petitioner, along with others filed O.S.No.1319 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the 2nd respondent and others. The petitioner and other plaintiffs were granted ad interim injunction. Admittedly, the same was vacated by the Trial Court. An appeal is pending before this Court.
3. An Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney was executed by 13 persons in favour of the 2nd respondent on 13-8-1998. Similarly, another Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney was executed on the same day by 8 persons in favour of the 2nd respondent albeit the document arrayed 9 persons as vendors. Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that neither of the Agreements of Sale cum General Power of Attorney disclosed the source of the title of the vendors.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal issued proceedings on 18-12-2012 mutating the name of the petitioner and others as the owners of the property.
The learned counsel for the petitioner himself pointed out that this order of the Tahsildar dated 18-12-2012 was stayed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) through orders dated 24-5-2014. He submitted that a revision filed by the petitioner and others against the stay order is pending and that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District stayed the order of the RDO through proceedings dated 05-6-2014. The Revenue records indeed disclosed the name of the petitioner as the owner of the property.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent claimed title to the property without tracing the title and that the controversy between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is a pure civil dispute. He submitted that as the petitioner was claiming title to the property and has been in possession over the property, there could not be any question of trespass on the part of the petitioner, so much so, the offence under Section 447 IPC is not made out. He also submitted that under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Police have no role to play.
5. In FAYAZ AHMED @ HASAN v. STATE OF
[1]
A.P. relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was noticed:
“10. From the facts of the case, it appears that both the parties are claiming rights in the subject property, one alleging against other of trespassing into the property by illegal means. Under law, if an entry into the property in possession of the other is made in exercise of the claim of bona fide right, it does not amount to criminal trespass. In this case, from the facts, which have been narrated hereinabove, it is obvious that there is scramble for possession between the parties by asserting their rights in the subject property. When there is a scramble for possession between the parties, the course open to them is to redress the remedies by approaching the Civil Court. The rights of the parties, such as title and possession, cannot be adjudicated in criminal proceedings. When there is a bona fide dispute between the parties in relation to the rights in the property, including that of possession, resorting to criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that there is bona fide dispute between the parties in relation to the rights of the property, so much so, criminal proceeding is not maintainable.
6. Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, contended that the daughter of the petitioner attempted to obtain a temporary injunction in I.A.No.924 of 2007 in O.S.No.432 of 2007 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District and that the same was dismissed. He also pointed out that the petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.1 in I.A.No.924 of 2007.
7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that respondents 6 to 10 in I.A.No.924 of 2007 were the owners of the property and respondent No.11 was their General Power of Attorney Holder.
He submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for the partition of the disputed property and that her interlocutory application was dismissed through orders dated 18-10- 2012. He submitted that the petitioner obtained orders thereafter from the Tahsildar on 18-12-2012 which indeed were later suspended by the RDO.
8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent claimed that the 2nd respondent, along with others filed O.S.No.3630 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District as there was serious threat of dispossession and obtained ex parte ad interim injunction on 06-6-2014.
9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also drew my attention to the fact that the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming that Police were interfering with the civil disputes wherein Police filed an undertaking that they would not interfere with the civil disputes. It is his claim that although the petitioner was resorting to criminal activity, Police became helpless spectators on account of their undertaking, so much so, the 2nd respondent filed Writ Petition No.17256 of 2014.
On 25-6-2014, it would appear that interim direction was issued to Police to render necessary help to the 2nd respondent. In Writ Appeal No.992 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein questioning the orders in W.P.No.17256 of 2014, Police were directed to investigate the case. It is the ultimate contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that it is not a fit case for quashment of the FIR.
10. The whole series of litigations show that there is a serious conflict regarding the title of the property between the petitioner and her supporters on the one side and the 2nd respondent and his supporters on the other side. In view of such a civil dispute, I am afraid that the 2nd respondent cannot convert the litigation into a criminal controversy and seek the assistance of Police. If orders were already passed by a Division Bench of this Court directing Police to investigate the matter, the question of filing fresh FIR and investigating the same does not arise. Primarily, where the dispute is predominantly a civil dispute, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not a fit case for permitting Police to investigate the same.
11. Consequently, this criminal petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.318 of 2014 on the file of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad is quashed so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
30th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7885 of 2014 30th July, 2014. (Ak)
[1] 2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 192 (A.P.)