HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2956 OF 2008 DATE:02-09-2011 BETWEEN: T. Venkat Ram Reddy and five others. - - - Petitioners/ A-1 to A-6. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2956 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings initiated against the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 in C.C. No.684 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the XI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy Disrict at L.B.Nagar-cum-Mobile Court, registered for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12-07-2007 the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, who was working as Tahsildar of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, sent a report to the Sub Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police Station stating that it was brought to her notice that the President of Ramalingeshwara Colony Welfare Association and others, on 09-0-2007, illegally encroached into Government land in an extent of 400 square yards in Sy.No.117 of Kothapet village and constructed basement and installed idol of Lord Hanuman that the defacto complainant directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector concerned to enquire into the matter that accordingly the Mandal Revenue Inspector enquired and submitted his report stating that the 1st Petitioner/A-1, who was the President of Ramalingeshwara Colony Welfare Association, and others had illegally encroached, into the Government land, constructed basement and installed an idol of Lord Hanuman in the aforesaid Government land and had been in the possession of it. Basing upon the said report, the Sub Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.796 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and after the completion of the investigation of the case the police filed charge sheet against the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. vide C.C. No.684 of 2007. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 has contended that even though the property in question belongs to the Government, there is no basis about its possession of the property and there is also no basis to hold that the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 had occupied the property illegally and mere possession of the property is not sufficient prima facie to hold that the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 are guilty of the alleged offences. He has further contended that the ingredients of Section 447 of I.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the case. He has also contended that if there is any prima facie case, that is against the 1st Petitioner/A-1 only and there is no material collected by the prosecution to proceed against the Petitioners 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 for the said offences. 4. The Point that arises for consideration is whether there is sufficient material to prosecute the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. or not? 5. Section 441 of I.P.C., which defines criminal trespass, reads as under : “Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, or having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal law (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorized possession or making unauthorized use of such property fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said commit “criminal trespass”. Section 447 I.P.C. which prescribes Punishment for criminal trespass reads as follows : “Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” 6. Point: At this stage it is only to be taken into consideration the allegations made against the Petitioners/A-1 to A-6 by the prosecution in the charge sheet and other material on record and also whether there is prima-facie case to prosecute them for the alleged offences. It is pertinent to note here that it is the specific case of the prosecution that the Government is the owner of the property in question, which in fact is not denied. So when the Government is the owner of the property, the possession of it over the property is to be presumed to be true unless it is rebutted. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid constructions took place in the site in question. Therefore, the allegations that the 1st Petitioner/A-1 trespassed into the property in question and made illegal constructions therein and he has been in the possession of the property and hence he is liable for punishment under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C, are to be gone into and decided on the basis of necessary evidence to be recorded at the time of trial. 7. When the possession of the Government over the property in question can be presumed by virtue of its ownership of the property and further, if the 1st Petitioner/A-1 trespassed into the property with intent to commit an offence, certainly Section 447 r/w Section 441 I.P.C. is applicable. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that no case is made out against all of them or any one of them in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. is not tenable. 8. So far as the involvement of the Petitioners 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 is concerned, there is only specific allegation in the charge sheet to the effect that the President of Ramalingeshwara Colony Welfare Association i.e., the Petitioner No.1/A-1 along with others illegally encroached into the property in question and made the said constructions therein and there is no specific allegation in the charge sheet against the Petitioners 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 with regards to their illegal occupation of the property in question. In fact there is only one bald allegation against the Petitioners 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 with regards to the illegal occupation of the property in question. It is pertinent to note here that while making the main allegation against the Petitioner No.1/A-1, it is not stated that the Petitioners 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 also actually participated in the crime along with the Petitioner No.1/A- 1. 9. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to dismiss the Petition so far as the Petitioner No.1/A-1 is concerned and allow the Petition so far as the Petitioners 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 are concerned. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed so far as the Petitioner No.1/A-1 is concerned and is allowed so far as the Petitioners 2 to 6/A-2 to A-6 are concerned quashing the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No.684 of 2007, pending on the file of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar-cum-Mobile Court. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 02-09-2011. DSH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 48 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2956 of 2008 Date:02-09-2011 Dsh/Gsn.