The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad 2- Abdul Saleem, S/o. Rabul Alli Khan Aged about 70 years, Occ. Business R/o H.No.12-60, [t/ain Station Raod, Beside STO office, Alair and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. .....RESPONDE NTS/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circrumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the ligh Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in CC No.'1 85 of 2018 on the file the Junior Civil Judge, Alair l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant a stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners in CC No.185 of 2018 on the file the Junior Civil Judge, Alair pending the disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the aLrguments of Srr V RAIVAKRISHNA REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioners SRl. E.GANESH ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. SUNIL GOUD Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6686 OF 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.185 of 2018, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Alair

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/accused, who are residents of Alair village in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, engaged 1n farming and small businesses. Based on the permission granted by the Government officials, the ancestors of the petitioners, who belong to Vadera and Kurma backward ST communities, constructed houses in Sy.No.1O37 of Alair village and living there peacefully. While so, in the year 1976 basing on the complaint lodged by the Waqf E!'V.J cRr-P 661t6 2023 Board, the Police registered a case in Crime No.45 of 1976 against the ancestors of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the same \\ras numbered as C.C.No.232 of 1976 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhuvanagiri. After full-fledged trial, the accused therein were acquitted uide juclgrnent dated

30.1O.1979. However, since the memberr; of the Waqf Board were interfering with the possession of the said land, a surit in O.S.No.169 of 1982 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Bhuvanagiri, was filed by the ancestors of the petitioners seeking perpetrral injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs therein in the subject land. The said suit was decreed uide judgment and decree dated 22.11. 1988 in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners, and since then, the ancestors of the l. EVV,J CRLP 6686 2023 petitioners and the petitioners have been living peacefully in the subject land in Sy.No.1O37 of Alair village.

3. While So, on 1O.O2.2O14, respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint stating that the petitioners and others have criminally trespassed into the Waqf land in Sy.No.1O37 of Alair village and constructed therein. Basing on the said complaint, without verifying the pima facie case and the allegations therein, the Police have registered Cr.No.86 of 2Ol4 of Alair Police Station, against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 447 of I.P.C and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1955. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been f,rled and the same was numbered as C.C.No.185 of 2018 on the frle of Junior Civil Judge, Alair, seeking to quash the said i1 EVV,J cRLP 6686 2021 i.-:4i.... r'\ proceedings, the petitioners have filed a criminal petition. 4, Heard Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1-State. Notice sent to respondent No.2/complainant returned with an endorsement ..respondent No.2 15 nO more"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners; filed death certificate of respondent No.2 through memo dated to.ro.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the first F.l.R filed against the ance:stors of the petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No.1O37 of Alair village 45 years ago has ended in acquittal of the ancestors of the petitions anci hence rr:gistration of EW,J CRLP 6685 2023 second F.I.R against the petitioners in respect of the very same land in Sy.No.1O37 of Alair village is nothing but an abuse of process of law, as no one can file several F.I.R in respect of the very same subject land. He further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C while taking cognizance for the punishable under Section 447 I.P.C and Section 52-A of Waqf Act, 1955. He aiso contended that as per Section 53(A3) of the Waqf Act 1955 no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under Section 52-A of the Waqf Act except on the complaint made by the Waqf Board or any officer duly authorized by the Government. In the instant case, the complaint has been hled by the respondent no.2 without any authorization from the Waqf Board or the state Government. He therefore prayed to allow the criminal EVV,J CRLP 6686 2023 A. petition by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.185 of

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that it is an admitted fact that the property belongs to the Waqf Board but the continuous nature of the offence falls under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The materia-l facts and evidence relied upon in the charge sheet need to be examined and after comp,letion of full- fledge trial only the truth wiil be elicited. llherefore, the Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to dismis;s the present criminal petition.

8. It is to be seen that Section 468 of Cr.l?.C stipulates that limitation bars the courts from taking cognizance of certain offences after a specified time frame, ensuring that justice 1S pursued without undue delay. The provision seeks to balance fairness, by avoiding EVV,J CRLP 6686 2021 prosecution of old offences, with the necessity of timely justice. g. Having heard the learned counsel for both respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is noticed that the said complaint has been fi1ed under Section 52(A) of the Waqf Act, 1955. This is specified as being barred under Section 46S(2)(b) of Cr.P.C, which stipulates that the period of limitation for the court to take cognizance of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year is barred. The punishment for an offence under Section 447 is three months. Therefore, the trial court failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 468 of Cr'P'C, in proper perspective while taking cognizance of the offence l1 t1 under Section 447 of the I.P.C. 1(). Further, Se'ction 52(A) of the Waqf Act, 1955 reads as under: I I I EVV.J CRLP 6636 2023 Q)llhoevcr alianates or purchases or takes posscssion of, it, any munncr whatsocvcr, either permanently or temporarily, any ntoyable or immovablc property being a waqf property, without prior st,ttctiott of thc Board, slnll bc putishable with rigorous imprisonmen t .for i lern v,hich nny extend lo two .years: l)rovided lhat the waqf propert.\, so aliuated slmll without Ttrejudice to the provisiotls of any law {or the ,rne being in .force, bc vcsted in tlrc Board without any Lontpcnsation t herefor'. ()Notwithstandi ng an))thing contained in the CotL of Crininol Proccdurc, 1973 (2 of 1974) any offence punishable uruler rhis scctiott shall be cognizable and non-bailable.(l)No court shall tali,: cognizanct oJ any offence undcr this section except on a complaint nrudt: b),, the Board or anv oJfcer duly autlrcrized by the State Got,en,ncnt in this behalf.Q)No court inferior to lhzt of o Metropolitan Mct;1:str.Lttc. or- tr Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any olJbnc: punishablc undcr tltis section.

11. In view of the above, this Criminzrl petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No. 185 of 20113 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Alair, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. T TIRUMALA DEVI T REGISTRAR 'I SECTION OFFICER T

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Alair Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 2. The Station House Officer, Alair Police Station Alair Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District 3. One CC to SRI V RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI K.SUNIL GOUD Advocate [OPUC] 5. TWO CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for th,: State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies PSL H]GH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER CRLP.No.6686 of 2023 \ I ilE ),{(( .{. 1N JUt'l A6 ,i c ) ') ? Dr- D,q 16 g F-o ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION /7) \ A4 Iq 4wrc