HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3779 OF 2008 DATE:02-09-2011 BETWEEN: Cheppalli Bala Subba Reddy and two others. - - - Petitioners/ A-1 to A-3. 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.3779 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No.41 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla. 2. The Petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the Petitioners in brief is as follows : An extent of Ac. 0-80 cents in Sy.No.169/A1 and Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.169/B2 situated at Harivaram Village belonged to one Ganda Nagi Reddy, who is the father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. The said Ganda Nagi Reddy got 3 sons by name Ganda Rami Reddy i.e., the husband of the 2nd petitioner, Ganda Chinnappu Reddy and Ganda Venkata Subba Reddy. The husband of the 2nd petitioner died leaving behind him the 2nd petitioner and one daughter by name Ganda Venkata Subbamma. The 2nd petitioner, Ganda Chinnapu Reddy, Ganda Chinnayyagari Nagi Reddy, Ganda Siva Sankar Reddy and Ganda Venkata Subba Reddy lived together under a joint family. Thereafter, a registered settlement deed was executed in favour of the 2nd petitioner by Ganda Chinnapu Reddy and Ganda Venkata Subba Reddy, pursuant to which, the 2nd petitioner got absolute rights over the subject matter of the lands. While so, Ganda Chinnapu Reddy, Ganda Chinnayyagari Nagi Reddy and Ganda Siva Sankara Reddy tried to interfere with the lands and hence, the 2nd petitioner filed a civil suit i.e., O.S. No.3 of 2006 before the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla of Kurnool District. Along with the suit, the 2nd petitioner also filed an application in I.A. No.409 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction and obtained temporary injunction vide order dated 21-08-2006 and the same is still subsisting. While so, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is the 3rd defendant in O.S. No.33 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, filed private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilakuntla alleging that on 06-01- 2007 the petitioners herein trespassed into his lands to an extent of Ac.0-60 cents situated in Sy.No.164/B2 and took away Bengal Gram crop existing therein and caused damage to a tune of Rs.15,000/- and requested to take action under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC which was forwarded to the concerned police for investigation. Subsequently, after conducting thorough investigation, the police filed a report into the Court stating that as per the statement of the concerned Village Secretary, the lands to an extent of Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.169/B2 belonged to the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner got temporary injunction on the subject matter and in fact on 25-10-2007 the 2nd petitioner filed a complaint in Uyyalawada Police Station against Ganda Siva Sankara Reddy alleging that he trespassed into her lands and caused damage to the crop raised by her with a request to take action against him and it was registered in Cr.No.87 of 2006 on the file of Uyyalawada P.S. and further, as per the report of the Sub- Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada Police Station, the defacto complainant was not residing at Harivaram village and finally the complaint given by the de facto complainant was a false one. Further, in order to harass the petitioners, after lapse of one year, the de facto complainant filed another private complaint before the same Court. Except change of date, all the averments made in the earlier complaint and the complaint filed later are one and the same. But, in the later complaint, the de facto complainant did not state about the factum of granting of temporary injunction and filing of the earlier complaint in the year 2007 and filing of the final report by the police. But curiously the police registered the later complainant and filed charge sheet without referring the earlier circumstances and accordingly, the Court took cognizance of the case. 4. Accordingly the learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended. The de facto complainant filed registered settlement deed along with other records in support of his claim. 5. I have gone through the record. As can be seen from the record, it is obvious that earlier one complaint was filed and it was referred to the police who on the investigation of the case filed final report to the effect that it happened to be a false complaint and on the same set of facts, the subsequent complaint was filed and charge sheet was filed and registered as C.C. No.41 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilakuntla and further, A-2 filed the suit and obtained interim injunction in I.A. No.409 of 2006 in O.S. No.133 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilakuntla which has been pending. A copy of that is filed before the Court. 6. In order to take cognizance of the calendar case, there should be clear opinion by the investigating agency with reference to relevant evidence with regards to the ownership of the property, but there is no basis to come to such a conclusion. In addition to that having filed the final report earlier on the same set of facts how could they take cognizance of the matter. It is surprising how the Court forwarded the later complaint to the police for investigation under those circumstances and took cognizance of the matter later. For the foregoing reasons the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the Calender Case No.41 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District against the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3. However, the de-facto complainant can proceed as per law or subject to any limitation of law if he really got ownership of the property, whereas this Petition is allowed on the ground that there is no sufficient material to prosecute the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the alleged offences. __________________​_______ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dsh/Rkk Dated: 02-09-2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 79 CRIMINAL PETITION No.3779 of 2008 02-09-2011 DSH/RKK