THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.5159 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.47 of 2008 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners are A1 to A10 and the respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant in the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in P.R.C. The facts of the case are as follows: One P.Pydamma and M.Pydamma were assigned land in S.No.155/1 and 155/2 with an extent of Ac.1.48 cents and Ac.1.48 cents situated at Mudapaka village, Pendurthy mandal, Visakhapatnam district respectively and on their application, the concerned revenue authorities tried to survey the property for the localisation of it, but A1 to A10 prevented the authorities from doing so. Therefore a report was given by the defacto-complainant in that context, which was registered in Cr.No.284 of 2005 of P.S. Pendurthy under Sections 3(1)(iv) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 to A10 that they purchased Ac.11.00 of land including the land of Ac.2.96 cents in Sy.No.155/1 and 155/2 of Mudapaka village said to have been assigned to the defacto complainant under registered sale deed dated 13.8.1953 and ever since, they have been cultivating the land raising crops and as the so-called victims tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the property, they filed O.S.No.59 of 1999 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction, but it was dismissed, following which they filed A.S.No.22 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and also filed I.A.No.102 of 2007 on 22.1.2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and obtained interim injunction preventing the so-called victims from interfering with their possession of the land and further the matter is purely civil in nature and hence, the P.R.C. has to be quashed. Having gone through the record, it is clear that there is a question as to whether the land in question was assigned to the defacto complainant and accordingly they were/have been in possession of the property and without any manner of right, A1 to A10 tried to interfere with their possession of the property. Further, even supposing that A1 to A10 purchased the property and have been in possession and enjoyment of it, if it happened to be an assigned land, they got no right to do so unless they also happened to be persons of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community by virtue of Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The allegations made clearly come within the purview of Section 3(1)(iv) of the Act. Further, the question of real ownership over the property is to be established before deciding the question of complicity of the accused in the case in view of rival contentions made taking necessary measures. Further, in this case, a question is raised as to who had to give report in the matter to the police. Section 154 Cr.P.C. contemplates giving information to the police in cognizable cases to take necessary action. It reads as under: (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.” Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not specifically say as to who has to give such information. When an offence committed by individual or individuals is to be taken as offence committed against the society, any body can given such information to the concerned police for taking necessary action, unless limitations are provided under law to do so. Further, when it happened to be assigned land, definitely the revenue authorities concerned with got right to do so and there is nothing wrong in giving the report to the police. Unless the trial of the case is conducted, the complicity of the accused in the matter cannot be decided. Further, in KISHAN SINGH v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1], the Apex Court held as under: “Thus in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.” Therefore, the question of both the civil liability and the criminal liability are to be tried independently and one does not bar the trial of the other and vice versa. Significantly when there is a question of establishing ownership of a property to prove a criminal charge all those concerned with proving it should take all necessary measures to do so. The Criminal Courts have to play active role to administer proper justice in those matters also taking exhaustive measures. The Presiding Officers of the Courts should not act as passive spectators while functioning their Courts. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.9.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .10.2011 [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624