Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2012 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2007 (C.C.) on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, registered for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC, so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

Whereas the petitioners herein are A-3 and A-4 the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the defacto complainants in the C.C.

For convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the C.C.

It is necessary to note the facts of the case as narrated for proper appreciation of the matter, it is as follows: The defacto complainant and A-1 to A-4 in the case are the residents of Secunderabad. On 27-05-2004 the defacto complainants filed a report before Medchal police against one V.V.Naidu and others on the ground that they trespassed into their land in S.Nos.823 and 827 (actual location not found in the material available) and demolished their compound which was registered as a case in Crime No.123 of 2004 on its file, but as no action was taken by the police, they approached the Court and obtained orders to the effect that the said persons got no rights over the land. But inspite of that V.V. Naidu and his men again entered the lands in Sy.Nos.823 and 827 belonging to the defacto complainants and started leveling the land. Therefore, the defacto complainants gave another report to the Medchal Police, which was registered in Crime No.300 of 2005 on its file for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and Sections 3 to 5 of the Land Grabbing Act. However, the police, after completing the investigation of the case, filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC alleging that A-1 to A-4 with mala fide intention to gain unlawfully sold out the land which in fact happened to be a protected tenancy land to the defacto complainants and others through GPA by suppressing real facts and thereby cheated the purchasers.

Learned counsel for A-3 and A-4 has contended that though the defacto complainants gave report only against V.V. Naidu and others of trespassing into the property, quite contrary to that the police filed the charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for a different offence and in fact the corresponding statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not constitute any allegations against A-3 and A-4 of cheating and trespassing into the property, by reason of which the charge sheet so far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned is not tenable. He also claims that unless certain allegations were made by the defacto complainants against A-3 and A-4, the question of conducting the investigation of the case in those lines does not arise at all. In fact he has read over the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which provide that no allegations were made by the defacto complainants against A-3 and A-4 in the case. Ultimately he pleads for quashing the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the defacto complainants also has asserted that the main allegations were made by the defacto complainants against V.V. Naidu and others only. He has not denied the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which were read over.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

What is significant is that the defacto complainants gave the report against V.V.Naidu and others only of cheating and trespassing into the property. Absolutely there is no record of allegations made by the defacto complainants against A-3 and A-4 with reference to the property in question. In other words when the defacto complainants are not making any allegations of cheating against A-3 and A-4, the question of filing the charge sheet in those lines may not arise at all. Therefore, what the investigation of the case discloses that A-3 and A-4 along with A-1 and A-2 involved in selling the property and as such they committed the alleged offence is without any basis. Hence filing the charge sheet against A-3 and A-4 is not tenable. Nobody should be prosecuted without any reason for any criminal charge, if it is done, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and curtailing their life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. Eventually the proceedings are liable to be quashed so far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned. This does not however preclude the police to proceed as per law if anybody affected by the transactions approach them for necessary action.