THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1316 of 2021

ORDER:

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.103 of 2020 on the file of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. The offences alleged are under Sections 448,427,506 read with 34 IPC.

Respondent No.1 is State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant. Despite notices being served on respondent No.2, none entered appearance.
Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 submitted arguments.
Point that falls for consideration is

"Whether institution and continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.130 of 2020 is abuse of process of Court?" POINT:

On a written information lodged by respondent No.2 on 28.10.2019, Gajulamandyam Police Station registered Cr.No.142 of 2019. After due investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet as against these two petitioners alleging offences under Sections 448,427,506 read with 34 IPC. The allegations in the charge sheet and the accompanying material indicate that de facto complainant/respondent No.2 purchased plot Nos.135 and 136 in an extent of 400 Sq.Yards situate in Sy.No.722/2B of Thukivakam Village from Vaikuntapuri Real Estate Private Limited under registered sale deed dated 09.03.2004. Since then, the property has been in possession of the de facto complainant. While so on 28.10.2019 both the petitioners along with their men and coolies came with a JCB and criminally trespassed into the property and came upon the de facto complainant high handedly and criminally intimated her and by using the JCB they got removed the boundary stones for the plots. Charge sheet further alleges that the investigating officer verified the registered sale deed of de facto complaint and inquired with the witnesses and found that the allegations are true. He filed charge sheet listing 06 witnesses.

In the present criminal petition learned counsel for petitioner urged two contentions as mentioned below
It is contended that even if all the allegations made in the charge sheet are taken to be true, they do not indicate any offence. 1st petitioner is 65 years old and 2nd petitioner is a woman and it could not be believed that they could have criminally intimidated the victim woman. As against it learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the state submits that the allegations in the charge sheet clearly disclose offences alleged and there is no merit in the contention.

A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioners allegedly entered into the property that has been allegedly in possession of the de facto complainant and their entry was without the consent of the de facto complainant and it was against her will and that they not only intimidated her but also removed the boundary stones available for the plots said to have been possessed and owned by de facto complainant. Whoever intentionally causes any change in any property or caused destruction of any property is said to have committed mischief as defined in section 425 IPC which is made punishable under section 427 IPC, if the value of the property destroyed is Rs.50/ or upwards. Whoever enters into the property which is in possession of another person and if this entry was with an intention to commit an offence or to cause criminal intimidation is said to have committed an offence of house trespass which is punishable under section 448 IPC. The allegations contained in the charge sheet does indicate intentional destruction of boundary stones and that was an offence and to commit that there was trespass. Therefore, one can say that the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet, whether true or false, prima facie do indicate offences. In these circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be sustained.
The next contention urged on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel is that it is these petitioners who have been in lawful possession of this property and that was recognized by a civil court and the present criminal proceedings are clearly an abuse of process of court. To sustain these, petitioners filed a copy of Judgement dated 05.12.2012 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in A.S.No.96 of 2010. As against it, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the state submits that the versions of defence are a matter for trial and they cannot form the basis to quash criminal proceedings.
As per the allegations in the charge sheet and its accompanying material, the defacto complainant purchased her plots of land in the year 2004 from Messrs. Vaikuntapuri Real Estate Private Limited, Tirupati. It is against that company, 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.520 of 2005 seeking for injunction and learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, after due trial, dismissed the same. As against that 1st petitioner herein preferred A.S.No.96 of 2010 before learned IV Additional District

Judge, Tirupati. The learned First Appellate Court on considering the evidence laid before it accepted the contentions of appellant therein and decreed the suit granting permanent injunction in favor of the appellant therein who is 1st petitioner herein and against M/s Vaikuntapuri Real Estate Private Limited and one M/s Vayuputra Associates. The judgment of the learned First Appellate Court indicate rival claims of title between the parties. That litigation is concerning Ac.2.77 Cents of land in Survey No.722/1B and Ac.0.23 Cents of land in Survey No.722/2A of Thukivakam Village of Chittor District. Be it noted that the present de facto complainant was not a party to that civil litigation. Be it also noted that the said civil litigation is with reference to Ac.2.77 Cents of land in Survey No.722/1B whereas the charge sheet mentioned property is 400 Square Yards of site marked as plot Nos.135 and 136. Be it also noted that the civil litigation does not indicate any nexus between defacto complainant and the petitioners herein. If in the opinion of the petitioners, the possession of respondent No.2 has been unlawful since 2004, they should have taken legal steps on civil side but instead, in the year 2019, they indulged in the actions that are arraigned in the charge sheet. The question that there is bonafide dispute regarding ownership and possession of property may be a valid defence in a prosecution but that by itself at this stage of the case cannot be stated to be a legal bar for institution and continuance of criminal proceedings. This Court finds no merit in the contentions of the petitioners.

Point is answered against the petitioners.
In the result, this criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

_____________________________

Date: 28.08.2023 DVS

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.1316 of 2021