THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5296 of 2007 Dated 21st April 2010 Between: Sanapala Seetharam and others …Petitioners / Accused AND The State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5296 of 2007 ORDER:- This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner praying to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioners herein. The same has been registered as Crime No.50 of 2006 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and subsequently it was numbered as P.R.C.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners further case is that the first petitioner, as G.P.A. holder, filed O.S.No.310 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge at Visakhapatnam seeking declaration that the classification of the suit schedule land covered by R.S.No.13 (old survey No.42) of an extent of 7.08 Acres in Madhavadhara Village as poramboke and subsequent reliefs including permanent injunction restraining the respondents therein and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. When the said suit was posted for arguments, one Sanapala Appala Narsamma – maternal grandmother of the second respondent herein filed application under Order I Rule 10 in I.A.No.479 of 1996 to implead herself as third respondent. The said application was dismissed on 22.04.1996. Meanwhile, on the ground that the land claimed by her appears to be a different land situated in different survey numbers, subsequently, O.S.No.310 of 192 was decreed on 07.06.1996 as prayed for. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge sheet allegations made in P.R.C.No.9 of 2007 does not disclose any offence against the petitioners, particularly, the offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients for constitution of offence under Section 447 IPC is not made out. It is also submitted that the second respondent, having lost the suit and appeal filed thereunder, now filed criminal case only to harass the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners got a favourable order in Writ Petition No.22517 of 1999 on the file of this Court and also in Second Appeal Nos.346 of 2000 and 642 of 2001, wherein, a common order as passed by this Court on 29.07.2005. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the petitioners already obtained interim injunction order and a decree in their favour and as the same has been confirmed by this Court, the question of trespassing into their own land does not arise. The learned counsel has referred to the decree in O.S.No.310 of 1992 and also the judgments in the said suit. However, when he was asked about the schedule of the property attached to the decree, he could not furnish the said schedule attached to the decree and thus, it is clear that the petitioners, for the best reasons known to them, have not filed the schedule of property either in the suit or in the earlier proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the respondent – defacto complainant, the survey numbers mentioned in the suit is R.S.No.13 (old survey No.42) to an extent of 7.08 acres in Madhavadhara Village, whereas the contents of the charge sheet go to show that the land claimed by the second respondent – defacto complainant in the criminal case is an extent of 3.00 acres situated in R.S.No.13/2 in old survey No.43/D. Thus, prima facie, the petitioner failed to establish that the schedule land in the civil suit or in the earlier proceedings referred by him is the same land shown in the criminal case. It is also submitted that this Court, on earlier occasion in Criminal Petition No.5792 of 2006 and 3201 of 2007 is allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and de-facto complainant, when proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the revenue authorities. The land referred in the said order is also Survey No.11 and the other particulars are not available in the said order. It is settled law that only in cases in which it manifestly appears that there is legal bar against institution and continuation of criminal proceedings in support of the offences alleged to have been committed or where it appears that even when the facts alleged in the complaint, if they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out the offence with which the accused are charged with. Thus, on the face of it, if it appears that no case is made out, in such circumstances, the High Court may quash the impugned proceedings. In a case between Ashabai Machindra Adhagale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others[1], it was held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified with the decisions specifically laid down in the section itself. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that there are no merits in this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR April 21, 2010 Bvv [1] (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 789