Criminal Petition No. 15346 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS) by petitioner/ accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additiona_l Metropoiitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, arising out of FIR No.150 of 2023, datcd 25.02.2023. The offences alleged against petitioner are under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and Section 6 of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short 'the Act, 1905').

2. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filcd seeking amendment of prayer, which is as follows

"...may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend FIR No. vide FIR No.24ll2O23 darcd 29.03.2O23 on the file of P.S. Jagadgirigutta instead of FIR No. 150/2023 which rvrongly typed, in CRL.P.No.15346 /2024, in lhe interest of justice ald pass such other order or ordcrs..." On 15.O4.2025, this Court allowed the Interlocutory Application ald accordingly the prayer is amended _4V I 2 J,{K. J (.l{L P 15i16 1024

3. He ard Ms. Talat Madiha, Iearned counsel for petitioner, N4r. N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Surepalli Prashrrnth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the responCent S tate Perused the material on record.

4. On the basis ol a r.r.ritten complaint by' the Executive Director. Anclhra Pradesh State Financial Ccrporation (for short 'AI)SFC'), an FIR bcaring No.241 of 2O23 came to be lodge d oo 29.O3.2023

5. Gis;t of the complaint is that APSFC was allotted land admeasrrring Ac.23B.2B guntas on lease basis for a period of 99 years in Sy.No.3O7/ 1 of Gajularamrrram Village, Quthubtrllapur Mandal, Mcdchal-Malkajgiri District, vide G.O.Ms.l\o.1100 dated 16.08.2OO7. That an (,xtent of land admeasurring Ac.33.11 guntas in Sy.Nos.3OE', 12, 3 and 5 was also alienated by erstwhile Governmerrt of Andhra Pradesh. That local persons i.e., petitioner/ accused herein encroached a part of land in Sy.No.3O7 11 and illegally constructed fencing. That pctitioner/ accused continued to encroach lald in Sv.No.3O7/ 1, backside of Ga Ii pochamrna ':{ 3 JAK, J cRL P 15346 2024 temple and constructed fencing, 1n spite of there being security agency for monitoring

6. A charge sheet bearing No.27 of 2024 is filed for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC and Section 6 of the Act, 1905. In the charge sheet, it is reflected that after allotmcnt of iand admeasuring 4c.238.28 guntas, possession '"vas delivered to APSFC by revenue officials on 20.O8.2O07 and 14.05.2008, after conducting panchanama. That since then APSFC has been in continuous possession and that accused/ petitioner encroached the land in Sy.No.307/ 1 7 . Learned counsel for pctitioner/ accused submitted that petitioner is owner of land admeasuring Ac.3.1B guntas in Sy.Nos.335/AA, 336 and 337 lA. That the sajd extent of land was purchased from one Mr. Pagidi Venkat Narsimha Reddy. It is further submitted that vendor was issued Pattedar Passbook bearing No.143442, Title Deed No.26983 and Patta No.193 by Mandal Revenue Officer. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to sale deed (at Page No.22) and contcnded'that it is a registered 4 JAK, J ( r - I' 153.16 2024 sa-le dee<l of his extent of land. Learned counsol also invited the attention ol this Court to Page Nos.32, 33 ar.rd 34 to 44 to substantiate the claim of petitioner that L t-- is owner of the land B. lt is contended that one more FIR u as registered under the ve{/ same Sections i.e.,447 and 427 of IPC and Section 6 of the Act, 19O5, as FIR No.150 ol 2023 dated

25.O2.2(\23 anci that a charge sheet bearing C.C.No.57 of 2024 is liled in the Court oi XIV Additional lvletropolitar Magistrate, I(ukatpally. It is also submittec t hat for the very sanre oflettces, tu'o FIR's cannot be registr:rr:d - g. It is submitlcd that entire issue rer rllves around identific,ation ancl demarcation of prrlperty in S-y.Nos.iiO7/1, 335/AA, 336,337 lA. It is furt'rt:r submitted that Section 6 of the Act, 1905, is not applicable in the prcsent facts and crrcumstances of tlre case, as identification atrd demarcation are not in dispute and that petitiont:r is not an cncroacher, as he purclased under a registered sale deed zrnd pattedar passbook is; issued in his name b1' concerned Revenuc Authorities. 5 JAK, J cRt. P r 5346 2024

10. It is submitted that no notice was issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1905 and petitioner/accused cannot be termed as an encroacher in the absence of any notice. l,earned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section 6 of the Act, 1905 and contended that procedure is to be adhered, which is mandatory, before terming the petitioner as an encroacher

11. l,earned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the orders in W.P.No.28832 of 2021, W.P.No.i059 1 of 2022, Review Petition in W.P.No.1O59l of 2022, W.P.No.10592 of 2022, W.P.No.2Lll4 of 2022, FIR No.150 of 2023 and copy of charge sheet (C.C.No.S7 of 20241. Order in Crl.P.No.15261 of 2024 was also read out. On the basis of the orders in writ petition, it is contended that the issue is civil in nature and criminal flavor is being given. It is submitted that registering of FIR's for the very SAINC offence is illegal anC is an abuse of process of law, if two FIRs for the very same offences are permitted to be on record. Hence, requested to quash the proceedings. 6 JAK, J cRL P 15346 2024 12 . Le:rrneci counsel also invited the attentr on of this Court to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex ()or-Lrt in Vijag Kumar Ghai and other a. State of West Bengal and othersl, Usha Chakraborthg and. dnother a. State of West Bengal and another2, ParamJeet Batra u. State of Uttarakhand and otherss, Kunti and anoliher a. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothef and The Commissioner of Police and others u. Deaender Anand and otherss.

13. Basing on the Apex Court judgments, it is submitted that the law laid down in the judgments by Apex Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., two FIR',s cannot be registered for the very serme set of facts. That when the dispute is civil in nature, a criminal flavor is being added, hence, the criminal petition is liable to be allowed b-v quashing the proceedings.

14. On thc other hand, learned counsel :ppearing on behalf of respondent No.2-APSFC submitted that survey ' lzozz'11 sc<'. tzt ' lzoz:; rs scc r:s ' (20r3) ll scc 67i o crl.e.No.llEo ol 20li. dared 03.05.2021 ' c.l.a.No.8i4 of 2017. dared 08.08.2019 t. I 7 Jn]( J cRL P 15346 2024 was conducted in the yeat 2OO7 and land was allotted vide G.O.Ms.No.1100, dated 16.08.2007. An extent of Ac.238.28 guntas (leased for a period of 99 years) was identified by RDO and possession was delivered to APSFC. It is further submitted that surveSr rvas conducted in the yeat 2O2O and, the entire land in Sy.No.3O7/1 of Gajularamaram Village allotted is in continuous possession of APSFC from the date of handing over.

15. Learned counsel submitted that filing of two FIR's is permissible as there are change in circumstances. It is submitted that the hrst FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint on 25.O2.2023, when petitioner/accused tried to level the land with gravel and tried to construct the fencing in APSFC land. It is further submitted that a number of writ petitions are filed for identification and demarcation of subject larld.

16. When this Court queried the learned counsel for respondent No.2-APSFC as to whether any fencing around the entire property was done, after survey was conducted in 2OO7, it is stated that no such fencing was done. It is 8 JAK. J cw P 15346 2024 ( further submitted that District Collector vide letter dated

12.10.2022, sought for a report of Mandai Surveyor with respect to land in Sy.No.335 lll4 to an extert of Ac.3.0O guntas" 'lhat a report was submitted by Mandal Surveyor and Manda-l Giridu,ar, that out of the tol.al extent of Ac.1 1.28 guntas in Sy.No.335, land to an extent of Ac.3.28 guntas is classified as Government lald and the remaining extent of land of Ac.8.00 guntas is patta lan<l recorded in the name of accused /petitioner as pattadar arLd covered by fencing. lt is also submitted that in the said leport, it u,as observed that there was a HMDA notified lakr: preliminary in the said survey number and no "Shikam" rvas observed as per ttre village map, whereas "bund" was observed as per villag,e map. Relying upon the report, it is contended that the entire issue pertains to identitlcation and demarcation raised by peti tioner/ accu sed, 1n spite of survey being conducted in 2O2O (witlt resirect to land allotted to APSFC). 17 . Learned counsel invited the attention of :his Court to orders in W.P.Nos.10592 of 2022, lO59I of 2022 and to 9 JAK, J cRL P t5346 2024 the Review Order in W.P.No.10592 of 2022. It is submitted that in the W.P.No.10592 of 2022 filed by petitioner/ accused to declare the action cf respondents as illegal for interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner, that the learned Single Judge of this Court clarified that order in W.P.No.10592 of 2022 is not applicable to APSFC and is directed against the municipality

18. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

19. An FIR bearing No.241 of 2023 came to be lodged on

29.03.2023 basing on the complaint of Executive Director of APSFC on the ground that petitioner/ accused encroached a pa-rt ol the land in Sy.No.307 ll and illega-lly constructed fencing in APSFC land. Land admeasuring Ac.238.28 guntas in Sy.No.3O7/ I of Gajulararnararn Village was leased to APSFC for a period of 99 years vide G.O.Ms.No.11OO dated 16.08.2OO7 . Possession of land was delivered by revenue oflicials on 20 .OA.2OO7 and

14.05.2008, after duly conducting panchanama. During the course of submissions, it is submitted by learned 10 JAK, J cRL P 15346 2024 6 counsel for APSFC that G.O.Ms.No.1100 u,ar; cancelled (by issuing another G.O.) and that land is to be resumed. The land is in the possession of APSFC as on date. It is submitted that after the bifurcation of the State, both States LLave equity

20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitionr:r/ accused relied upon the following judgments for the propositions that second FIR is not maintarnable on the same set of allegations, that disputes o[ civil nature cannot be given a criminal flavor and Section 482 of ,lr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the proceedings u,here the dispute IS 6jgessentiall, civil in nature. The follou,ing eritracts of the relevant paragraphs are relied upon by the counsel for petitiont:r/ accused for the above propositions

21. The Honble Apex Court in Vijag Kumar Ghai a. State of W,8,,6 held as follorvs "16. Thc lcgality of the second FIR was cxtcnsively discussed by this Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kr:rala & Ors. 14. lt r.r,as held that there can be no second FIR where the infornration concerrLs the same cognisable oflence 13 (2021) 5 SCC 435 14 (20O 1) 6 SCC 18 1 alleged in t1e hrst FIR llr the " (2022) 7 scc 124 l1 JAK. J cRL P 15346 2024 same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was further held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section I54 of Cr.P.C has been recorded, any information received aJter t}.e commencement of investigation cannot form the Lrasis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Court further held that barring situations in which a counter- case is hled, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation" and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either undcr Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of india."

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Utterakhand and othersT held as follorvs: "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of thc Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are prcsent or not has to bc judged by the High Court. A complarnt disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash crimina.l proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court."

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunti and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1380 of 20231 held as follows: ' 1zo r; r r scc oz: I L t } i1 L i; I -I 12 JN K, J cRt- t, t5346 2024 (f "11. In Vij ay Kumar Ghai v. State cf W.B (2022) 7 SCC 124, one of us, (Krishna Murzri J.,) ot'served in reference to earlier decisions as urLder: "24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U P. lG. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 63j . 2000 SCC (Cri) 5131 observed that it is the dutl and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a grr.rl deal of caulion in issuing the orcice,s parttcularll, when matters are essentialll, of civii nature.

25. This Court has time and again cautioneci about converting purely civil disputes ir tc criminal cascs. This Court in Indian Orl Corp n flnciian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., {2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2O06) 3 SCC (Cri) 1881 noticed t rc prcvalent imprcssion that civil larv rerrcrlics arc time consuming and do not .rdequately protect t rc intcrcsts of lcnders/creditors. 'l'he Court furthc: obsen.ed that : (lndian Oil Corpn- Case Indian ()ii Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2OC6l 6 ScC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 1881 , SCC p. 74e, para i3) "13. ... Any effort to settle civil disputes arrd claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by appl],ing pressure through criminal prosecution should bc deprecatcd arrd discouraged."

24. This Court requested learned counsel .1pl)earing on behalf of APFSC (presently TSFSC) to producc a copy of joint survey inspection report conducted, a copy of the report is produced before this Court. From th,: report, it is observed that survey and demarcation of latrd (extent of 4c.238.28 guntas 1n Sy.No.307/1) was conlucted by a team of c,fficials (i.e., survey officials, revenue ofiicials and APFSC officia-ls). It is further observed from the report that -4 I I I l t3 JAK, J cRL P t5346 2024 in the presence of these officials, demarcation was completed and sketch was prepaled showing boundar5r of Sy.No.3O7/1 between SFC land and patta lands and that SFC officials erected the boundary pegs marked on the spot.

25. It was con tended by the counsel for petitioner/ accused that the dispute is civil in nature. But, no proceedings civil in nature are brought to the notice of this Court, except for the pcnding writ petitions and orders rendered by learned Single Judges in writ petitions. The contention that the dispute is civil in nature takes a back seat in the facts of the case, once the boundary pegs are marked after a survey, any interference into such demarcated land would only demonstrate the intention of the petitioner/ accused to trespass into the land of APSFC Petitioner/accused was at liberty to initiate civil proceedings, if he had any grievance. No such proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, offences as reflected in the charge sheet need no interference on the d::- I t4 JAK, J c'Rr. P 15346 2024 .i + - -. 'rr l-.. ,.,:'., 61' ground oanvassed before this Court that disp ule is civil in nature being given a crimina-l flavour.

26. Le:rned counsel for APSFC submittr'd that land allotted rs engulfed in litigations. That it would be difficult for APSFC to return the entire subject l;rnd, if such encroachments are permitted to continue. Th:rt rt rvould be an impc,ssible task for APSFC to return subject land admeasuring Ac.238.28 guntas to the State Gove'rnment.

27. This Court is conscious of the fact that .jurisdiction exercised is under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. F.rctual aspect revea,ls t.:lat the genesis of the criminal proceedings is the subject land. Needless to statc that APSFC is always at liberty to take steps to protect the subject prcperty', except the disputed portion, by raising a fence (provided if there al'e no legal proceedings pending with regard to the fencing of the subject property). it can demarcate the land engulfed in litigations. This would protect the property ol' the State halded over to APSFC. 15 JAK, J cRL P t5346 2024

28. It is apparent from the record that litigations are cropping up over the subject land allotted to ApSFC. A number of writ petitions are brought to the notice of this Court, no less than 12 in number taxing the valuable time of High Court. No citizen is prevented from taking recourse to legal proceedings, be it civil or criminal. No civil proceedings are initiated by any of the parties.

29. Now, the point for consideration is, whether proceedings can be quashed for registration of a second FIR on the same set of allegations. Perused the contents in both the complaints. Complaint dated 25.02.2023 is as follows: "Sir, Sub: Crimina-l Trespass and encroachment into the land belongs to AP State Financial Corporation located at Sy.No.307/ 1 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthubutlapur Mardal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Erstwhile Ranga Rcddy District), Telangana State-Request to lodge criminal case against S.Janaki Ramaiah - Reg. Ref: G.O.Ms.No. 1 10O dated 16.Oa.2OO7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh alienated the land extent of Ac.33.11 guntas in Sy.No.308/2, 3 & 5 and also allotted the land extent of Ac.238.28 guntas on lease basis for 99 years in Sy.No.3O7/1 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District), Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh State , ! I ' I l ,' x I t, I t T I t6 JAK, J cRr- P 15346 2024 o Financia,l Corporation (APSFC) vide G.O.Ms.No i i00 datcd 16.08.2007. The possession of the land was delivered to the Corporation on 20.08.2007 and 14.05.2008 by the Rer,,enuc Ofhcials of Quthubullapur Mandal duly conCucting Panchanamas. APSFC has bccn in continuous possession and occupation of the land covr:red by G.O.Ms.No. i 10O daled 16.08.2007. The Corporation engaged the servicr:s of Secrrity agency M/s. Grace Security & Services, Hyderabad for watch & ward of the land and ser:urity agency informed to APSFC that some of the loca-l persons namely S.Janaki Ramaial' S/o. Ver-rkata Nar,eyana (aged about 60 years) encroached thtr part of lzrnd in Sy.No.3O7/ I and illegally constructed the fencring in APSFC land. Our Security Guards and Security Supe;-v.isor inspected the site on 2O.O2.2O23 and found that S.Janaki Ramaiah leveling the land with gravel. S..lanai<i Ramarah continucd to cncroac 1 the Iantl in Sy.No.3O7l 1 (backside of Gali Pochamma temple) altd constructed thc fencing in APSFC land in spite of continuous monitoring (photos enclosed). Hence, we request you to register the complaint against S.Jalaki Ramaiah and take necossary action."

30. The: second complaint lodged on 29.03.2023 is as follows: "Sir Sub: Criminai Trespass and encroachm,:nt into the land belongs to AP State Finan<:ial Corporation located at Sy.No.307/ 1 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Distlict (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District), Telangana State- Request to lodge criminal case agairst S.Janaki Ramaiah - Reg. Ref: G.O.Ms.No. I 100 dated L6.O8.2OO7 *** The Government of Andhra Pradesh a-iierrated the -and extent of Ac.33.11 guntas in Sy.No.3O8/2, 3 & 5 and a-1so allotted the land extent of Ac.2ii8.28 gunr-as on lease basis for 99 years in Sy.No.3O7/ 1 of

1.7 JAK, J cF.L P 15346 2024 Gajularamaram Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchai-Malkajgiri District (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy District), Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) vide G.O.Ms.No.1 100 dated 16.O8.2007. The possession of the land was delivered to the Corporation on 20.08.2007 and 14.05.2008 by the Revenue Oflicials of Quthubullapur Maldal duly conducting Panchanamas. APSFC has been in continuous possession and occupation of the la;rd covered by G.O.Ms.No.110O dated l6.Oa.2OO7 . The Corporation engaged Lhe services of Security agency M/s. Grace Security & Serwices, Hyderabad for watch & ward of the lald and security agency informed to APSFC that some of the local persons namely S.Janaki Ramaiah S/o. Venkata Narayana (aged about 50 years) encroached the part of land in Sy.No.3O7/ 1 and illegally constructed the fencing in APSFC lald. Janaki Ramaiah continued to encroach the lald in Sy.No.3O7l 1 (backside of Gali Pochamma templc) ald constructed the fencing in APSFC land in spite of continuous monitoring. Hence, we request you to register the complaint against Janaki Ramaiah and take necessary action."

31. Except one paragraph i.e., paragraph No.4 in complaint dated 25.02.2023, contents are same, paragraph No.4 is as follows: "...Our Security Guards and Security Supervisor inspected tlre site on 2O.O2.2O23 and found that S.Janaki Ramaiah leveling the land with gravel."

32. Deletion of paragraph No.4 from the second complaint does not alter the nature of complaint, complaint dated 28.03.2023 is identical to complaint dated

25.O2.2023, word I i word, it's a verbatim reproduction l8 JAK, J cRL P 15346 2024 { No chartge in circumstances or new circu:lstances are noted. It is settled proposition of law that a second complaint can lie on fresh facts or even on i;revious facts only if a special case is made out. No special circumstances special case is made out. By virtu.e of second complaint, FIR bearing No.241 of 2023 carne to be registered for same offences. Allegations ,tre identical, seccnd IrlR calnot be sustained on the same set of facts and allegaticns.

33. Contentions canvassed by learned counsel for petrtioner/ a.ccused that a second FIR cannot l>e maintained on the same set of allegations is a valid cor tention. The conlentions advanced on the ground of non-rrLaintainability of a secc,nci FIR cannot be brr-rshed aside ani rn the facts anci circumstances of the case, this Court fir: ds no reason to contin.ue the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additiona,l Metropolitan Magistratt:. Kukatpally, Cyberabad, arising out of FIR No.24.. of 2023. If proceedings are permitted to continue on the basis of second complaint, it would amount to abuse of process of 19 JAK, J cRL P 15t46 2024 law. Proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolital Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, arising out of FIR No.24 1 of 2023 are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Any observations made in this order sha.ll not influence the trial Court while considering or concluding the case.

34. For the reasons aforesaid, Criminal petition is allorved. Miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, sha-ll stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR sehffi(orrrcen

1. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Kukatpally 2. The SHO, PS Jagadgirguta. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Talat Madiha, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies KRK/gh ?+ ,/ >'' .:> \. : t,r .( (. 10 sEP 206 1/ .i lr,., 4T,l' rf--O ,\ >\ c) HIGH COURT DATED:151O412025 ORDER CRLP.No.15346 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ( 2\ B