IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1124 of 2009 Date:31.12.2010 Between: Vasupalli Danayya .....Petitioner AND: The State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., and another ....Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1124 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2009 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. According to the petitioner, he is the accused in Crime No.45 of 2009 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station for the alleged offence under Sections 447, 427, 353, 506 read with 34 IPC. According to him, himself, his wife and his family members are residents of Kapuluppada village, K. Nagarapalem Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam district and they are the absolute owners of the land of an extent Ac.0.93 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents covered by Survey No.294/2, Patta No.421 situated at Kapuluppada village and the said land is an ancestral property of the petitioner’s father which was acquired by his grand father. According to him an extent of Ac.0.11 cents out of Ac.1.04 cents acquired by the Government for the purpose of road widening and the remaining extent is only Ac.0.95 cents of the above said land is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and his family members. The 2nd respondent and his henchman are putting troubles to the petitioner for illegally to occupy the said land and hence the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.382 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and obtained an injunction orders in I.A.No.906 of 2007 against the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has filed two suits in O.S.Nos.382 of 2008 and 383 of 2008 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property with a malafide intention to grab the suit schedule property of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property after demise of his father and his name was mutated in the revenue records and the petitioner’s name was also incorporated in the revenue records and the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemunipatnam issued No.3 Adangal dated 6.2.2007 in the name of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has also filed an IA No.299 of 2008 in O.S.No.385 of 2008 and I.A.No.300 of 2008 in O.S.No.388 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property and the said I.A.No.299 of 2008 in O.S.No.385 of 2008 and I.A.No.300 of 2008 in O.S.No.388 of 2008 were dismissed by the said court. Suppressing all these facts, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the Bheemunipatnam Police Station and converted the civil dispute into criminal case which is not permissible under the Act. Hence the petitioner filed this petition to quash the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2009. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter denying the allegations made in the petition and according to him the petitioner and his sons Rama Rao, Danesu, Narasinga Rao along with Vasupalli Yellamma, wife of Ramulu, her son Vasupalli Durga Rao together sold Ac.1.04 cents in the year 1981 in favour of Datla Chiranjeevi Subrahmanya Raju and others and the said purchasers again sold the said property in favour of Paladugu Ramesh Chandra and two others on 6.3.1992. Originally the property in dispute is situated in S.No.292/4 in an extent of Ac.1.04 cents and out of which Ac.0.11 cents was acquired for widening the road, which is leading from Visakhapatnam to Bheemunipatnam beach. The remaining extent is only Ac.0.93 cents. On 22.4.1994 Smt Dandu Jayasree, wife of Ramakrishna Raju and Poosapati Jayaprada together purchased an extent of Ac.0.35 cents under registered sale deed. Similarly Kakkera Krishna Sanjeevi and his brother together purchased an extent of Ac.0.35 cents of land on the same day. The owners of both the sale deeds jointly constructed a compound wall all around the site and erected a gate. There is a shed constructed and a bore well dug in the compound and a watchman was put in. When the land was acquired for road widening the address was given by the land Acquisition Officer as Vasupalli Durgayya @ Durgappa, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam and it is dated 7.12.1991 and by the date of acquisition the property was already sold. Smt Dandu Jayasree, Kakkera Krishna Sanjeevi and his brother are presently in State and they are holding the status of NRI’s. The petitioner Vasupali Danayya field a suit in O.S.No.382 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge court, Bhjeemunipatnam against Pinnamaraju Srinivas, Kakkera Krishna Sanjeevi, Smt Dandu Jayamma and Smt Poosapati Jayaprada by giving insufficient and wrong address and after filing of the said suit obtained exparte order alleging that the defendants are strangers. The purchasers Krishna Sanjeevi and his brother, Smt Jayaprada and Jayasree are not aware of the suit filed against them and therefore, on the information furnished by their watchman, the power of attorney of Smt Jayasree Dr. P.S.N. Raju contacted Dr. K. Venkata Rao who is residing at Vijayawada and after consulting their advocate, they filed two separate suits in O.S.No.385 of 2008 and 388 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s court, Visakhapatnam for injunction. The petitioners and others even though have sold the property they are trying to interfere with the possession of the purchasers and trying to change the physical features by demolishing the compound wall and the said 2nd respondent was compelled to file the complaint. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint clearly establishes that they have committed the offence on the alleged date and they do not relate to the civil dispute and as such the FIR is not liable to be quashed and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for quashing the FIR in Crime No.45 of 2009 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station as prayed for. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the dispute is with regard to the land in S.No.294/2002 for an extent of Ac.0.93 cents in Kapuluppada village is pending before the Civil Courts and the civil cases were filed by the petitioner himself and obtained interim injunction against the 2nd respondent and others and the same is subsisting and the suit filed by the 2nd respondent and others against the same property and the petitions filed for granting of interim injunction was dismissed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and having failed in their attempts in obtaining interim injunction against the petitioner, they have lodged a false complaint by converting the civil dispute into the criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has pleaded that the civil disputes are nothing to do with the criminal complaint lodged by them and according to them, the disputed property was purchased by Smt Dandu Jayasree, Kakkera Krishna Sanjeevi and his brother under registered sale deed dated 22.4.1994 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the petitioner under the guise of interim injunction obtained by him tried to trespass into the suit schedule property on 12.2.2009 at 9.00 a.m and threatened the watchman and demolished the shed abutting the compound wall and when the 2nd respondent on the other hand questioned him, he threatened with dire consequences. Therefore, for the offence committed by the petitioner and others on 12.2.2009 is to be investigated by the police and the petitioner will have an opportunity to establish his innocence before the police during the course of investigation and therefore, there is no need to quash the proceedings at this stage. From the above respective contentions of both the petitioners and the respondent No.2, it is evident that the disputed land is in S.No.292/2 to an extent of Ac.0.93 cents and according to the petitioner he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and whereas the 2nd respondent has pleaded that the said property was purchased by Smt Dandu Jayasree, Kakkera Krishna Sanjeevi and others by a registered sale deed and they are in possession of the said property and the petitioner tried to trespass into the said property with an intention to change the physical features of the said property. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.382 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and obtained interim injunction order in I.A.No.906 of 2007 in the said suit. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent and others have filed O.S.Nos.385 of 2008 and 388 of 2008 against the petitioner and others and their attempts to obtained injunction orders in I.A.Nos.299 of 2008 and 300 of 2008 were failed and the said petitions were dismissed after due enquiry by the said court, holding that they are not in possession of the said property. The correctness of the said findings given by the civil court cannot be questioned in Criminal proceedings. Therefore, as per the above said findings given by the civil court, the petitioner is in possession of the said property. Even as per the averments made in IA No.299 of 2008 in O.S.No.385 of 2008 filed by the 2nd respondent on behalf of Smt Dandu Jayasree, Kakkera Krishna Sanjeevi, it is alleged that taking advantage of the temporary absence of the plaintiffs at the plaint schedule property, the respondents therein who is the petitioner herein is trying to encroach into the suit schedule property by using force and damaging the compound wall in the month of February, 2008 and the watchman engaged by the plaintiff resisted the acts and stated that the property belongs to the plaintiff and informed the same by phone to the plaintiffs immediately to the husband of the 1st plaintiff and in turn they gave a police complaint against the defendants but the defendants managed the police and again on 8.3.2008, the defendant along with his henchman came to the suit schedule property and tried to encroach the suit schedule property. So the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction along with this petitioner. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has made an attempt in the month of February, 2008 and again on 8.3.2008 to enter into the suit schedule property and cause damage to the compound wall and therefore, he has filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. Even in the present complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner had tried to encroach into the said property on 12.2.2009 along with his henchman and on receipt of the information from the watchman, 2nd respondent has lodged the complaint and by that time he came to the spot, the shed abutting the compound wall was demolished. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent since 2007 and according to the 2nd respondent earlier also the petitioner has made an attempt to encroach into the suit schedule property and demolished the compound wall and he has filed a suit for injunction but he could not succeed in getting the injunction order. As already observed above, the I Additional Senor Civil Judge had observed while dismissing of the said petitions filed by the 2nd respondent for injunction holding that the petitioners therein i.e., Smt Dandu Jayasree, Kakkera Krishna Sanjeevi who are being represented by 2nd respondent herein are not in possession of the said property as on the date of filing of the said suit. Therefore, the 2nd respondent was not in possession of the suit schedule property since the year 2008 itself, the question of petitioner trying to trespass into the said land does not arise. Therefore, it is evident that the 2nd respondent is trying to convert the civil dispute pending between the 2nd respondent and others into a criminal case only to harass the petitioner which is not permissible under law. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2009 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2007 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District are hereby quashed. ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD,J December 31st , 2010 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1124 of 2009 Date:24.12.2010 Gk.