IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRL.P.NO.5630 OF 2005. Date:03.03.2010 Between:- K.Seshasai @ Balasai Baba and others ..Petitioners/Accused And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor and another. .. Respondents/Complainant ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed praying for the relief to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.950 of 2005 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool in the interest of justice. 3. The counsel on record had taken this Court to the relevant grounds and made submissions in elaboration. The case of the petitioners-accused is that the allegations even if to be taken into consideration, the offences under sections 441, 425 and 426 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “I.P.C.”), are not attracted. Even otherwise, as per the clear averments made in the complaint, in the light of Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Cr.P.C.”), the limitation being one year only, the complaint is scopelessly barred by limitation. 4. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is the onwer of the land in Survey No.71/1 of Munugalapadu village of Kurnool Mandal. The accused trespassed into the land and laid road occupying the land to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents in the year 1999-2000. The complainant, being weak person having no support, kept quiet. The width of the road was twenty feet. Again in the month of February, 2002, twenty feet road was widened to thirty feet road. Actually, there was no road and the accused have no manner of right to enter into the land of the complainant and lay a road. Thus, the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 441, 425 and 426 read with 34 I.P.C. It is also stated that the complainant gave a report to the police but they have not taken any action and the complaint was filed on 02.04.2002. It is also stated that the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Kurnool Taluk Police Station registered the complaint as Crime No.103 of 2002 and conducted investigation. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police filed a final report on 22.10.2002. The police in their investigation, examined the complainant. During the investigation, the police found that the complainant was no longer the owner of the land in Survey No.71/1 on the date of alleged commission of offence. The police visited the registration office and collected the registered sale deed dated 06.11.2000 under which, the complainant sold the land in Survey No.71/1 to one Sri Maddineni Bhanu Prakash, son of M.Prasada Rao. Thus, the police found that the complainant was not the owner of the land into which the accused were alleged to have trespassed. Hence, the police reported to the Court that the complaint is mistake of false. Further, it is stated that the complainant, after coming to know of the report of the police, instead of filing protest petition, filed an application praying the Court to refer the matter to the II Town Police Station, Kurnool. However, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. Further, it is stated that even according to the allegation of the complainant, the accused tresspassed into the land in the year 1999- 2000. This is as vague as it could be. It is submitted that the accused were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 426 and 447 I.P.C. for which, the punishment is imprisonment for three months or with fine or with both. Under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., the limitation for taking cognizance is one year, if the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Thus, even assuming that the offence was committed in the year 2000 and when the complainant had knowledge of the same as stated in the complaint, the complaint is barred by limitation. The proceedings are to be quashed on this ground alone. The averment in the complaint that the accused have widened the road to one of thirty feet in February, 2002 does not save the situation in any way and at any rate does not constitute a new offence. It is further stated that when the complainant had sold away the land in which the accused were alleged to have trespassed by a registered sale deed dated 06.11.2000 and when the complainant had given possession to the vendee under the document, the complainant has no locus standi to maintain a complaint. Thus, the complainant had suppressed the material facts and if the proceedings were allowed to go on, it would amount to abuse the process of Court. It is further stated that the complaint is filed with oblique motive and to tarnish the image of the petitioners in the eye of the public. It is submitted that the complainant has not given any particulars as to what property was damaged by the petitioners-accused at the time of alleged commission of offence of trespass. Thus, the adding of sections 425 and 426 I.P.C. in the complaint is without any basis. It is further submitted that in the light of the allegations made in the complaint and a perusal of the public document i.e., a registered sale deed makes it clear that the complainant has no locus to maintain a complaint and in any event the complaint is barred by limitation and subjecting the accused to undergo the ordeal of trial, it would amount to abusing the process of Court. 5. This Court had already gone through the averments made in the complaint and also the docket order. No doubt, certain submissions were made regarding the ownership of the land in question. However, even in the light of the allegations made, especially in the light of the language of Section 468(2)(a)&(b) of Cr.P.C., the same is barred by limitation. The merits and demerits of the other questions need not be elaborately discussed. This Court also had perused the copies of the sale deeds, the passbooks, the adangal copies, the Mandal Survey report and the village map produced before this Court. In the light of the same, to proceed with the prosecution, it would be just a futile and empty exercise. 6. In the light of the same, the Criminal petition is hereby allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.950 of 2005 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool District. __​_____________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 3rd March, 2010 AMD