HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.2528, 2594 and 5067 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H. Prahalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in all the three criminal petitions. In all the three criminal petitions, the main challenge of the petitioners is against taking cognizance and proceeding with the offence under Section 5 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short “the Act”) against them in the light of a Larger Bench decision of this Court that the said Act does not contemplate adjudication into the matters where the allegation is only an attempt to grab the land. Incidentally, the petitioners also try to claim to be innocent of all the offences and sought for an omnibus relief of quashing the entire proceedings. In Criminal Petition No.2528 of 2009 involving C.C. No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, the report on which the first information report was registered, was about the de facto complainant obtaining an interim injunction against the petitioners, in violation of which, the petitioners committed criminal trespass on 03-10-2004 along with others and also dismantled 70 stone kadies and attempted to commit murder of de facto complainant. The complaint does not even remotely allege the complainant to have been dispossessed from the land in question. The charge-sheet which followed the investigation into the said complaint added no further material to presume the alleged criminal trespass to have resulted in the dispossession of the de facto complainant. Similarly, the complaint, which resulted in C.C. No.6 of 2007, ultimately after investigation by the statutory investigating agency, before the same Court, against the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.5067 of 2009, also only alleged that the de facto complainant is the owner of the land in question in lawful possession, enjoyment and cultivation, which was sought to be interfered with by the petitioners therein on 03-10- 2004 along with others. The complaint made identical allegations about the overt acts of the petitioners and others and concluded that the petitioners tried to threaten the labour working in the land with death and attempted to occupy the garden land. The investigation that followed did not show in the charge-sheet anything further to presume such attempted dispossession to have been actually translated into dispossession physically. In the complaint, which led to investigation and filing of C.C. No.4 of 2007 on the file of the same Court, against the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.2594 of 2009 also, the allegations were more or less identical by the de facto complainant therein and the charge-sheet disclosing the result of investigation did not add anything more. The de facto complainants added as respondents herein in the three petitions through their learned counsel, denied the claims of innocence made by the petitioners regarding the sequence of events and they primarily contended that when the trial Court of competent jurisdiction is seized of the matter and the trial is in progress and the matters are part-heard with many witnesses having been already examined, the question of maintainability of the cases under Section 5 of the Act would have to be more appropriately left for a decision on merits by the trial Court instead of interference with the same in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. Thus, the factual matrix in these three cases present a situation where the de facto complainants in all the three cases claim to be owners in lawful possession, with which the petitioners in all the three criminal petitions and others have respectively attempted to interfere by indulging in criminal trespass, accompanied by other offences against the properties and persons of victims. However, in so far as the possession of the respective lands with the de facto complainants is concerned, it is not even remotely alleged that the alleged offences led to their dispossession from the land. As such, what was attempted in so far as any offence under the Act is concerned, is dispossession of the persons claiming to be the owners and lawful possessors, but not any success in such attempt. The Larger Bench in Hindusthan Aeronautics Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad v. Special Court (constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982)[1] held that the Act does not contemplate adjudication into matters where the allegation is only as to attempt to grab the land and the Larger Bench observed that the rules framed under the Act also strengthen such a conclusion. It is only an act of accomplished grabbing that was said to constitute a matter within the cognizance of the Courts under the Special Act in respect of appropriate civil or criminal proceedings as provided in the Act itself and this conclusion of the Larger Bench that an attempt to grab the land cannot be treated as an act of land grabbing and is, therefore, outside the purview of the Special Act, is stated to be the subject of further consideration before the Apex Court. But as of now, there appear to be no interim or final orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court effecting the principles laid down by the Larger Bench being operative and in force. Being bound by the said precedent and on the admitted facts, it has to be, therefore, concluded that ex facie, the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners in all the three criminal petitions in respect of the alleged offence under the Act are, ex facie, untenable and unsustainable and they have to be quashed accordingly. However, such quashing in respect of the alleged offence under the said Special Act cannot, in any manner, interfere with the further proceedings in the three criminal cases in respect of the other offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners respectively in the respective cases, as the truth or otherwise of the said allegations in respect of such offences is for the trial Court to enquire into and determine on merits in accordance with law on the evidence placed before it, but not for any deep fact finding enquiry in this summary proceeding within the restricted scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the further criminal proceedings in C.C. No.4 of 2007; C.C. No.5 of 2007 and C.C. No.6 of 2007 all on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners respectively, concerning the alleged offence under Section 5 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, are quashed, but the further proceedings in the said criminal cases in respect of the other offences alleged against them shall remain unaffected and be continued in accordance with law and any observations made in this order shall not, in any manner, influence such further proceedings. These criminal petitions are ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-07-2009 Svv [1] 2004 (6) ALD 769 (LB)