APHC010168352022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: Gadhiraju Lakshmipathi Raju State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- The instant Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C behalf of the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.273 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/ Accused in Crime No.11 of 2022 of K.V.B.Puram Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 447, 341 and 506 I.P.C. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2551 OF 2022 Gadhiraju Lakshmipathi Raju ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: The instant Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C behalf of the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.273 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/ Accused in Crime f K.V.B.Puram Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 447, 341 and 506 I.P.C. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The instant Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.273 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/ Accused in Crime f K.V.B.Puram Police Station for the offence punishable under 2 3. Heard Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. Despite service of notice, none represented for respondent No.2. 4. Perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the sole accused in this case. Originally, land in Sy.No. 373/4 to an extent of Ac. 0.30 cents is a private patta land belongs to Sri Arambakkam Mannaru S/o Muragaiah and his name is reflected in the fair adangal of the village in the year 1956. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner’s father purchased the subject land in the year 1970 under an unregistered Sale Deed (Sadabainama) and since then, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that initially the father of the petitioner made an application for regularization of the unregistered Sale Deed to the respondents 2 to 4 along with documents on 10.10.2018, but the respondents did not choose to take any decision over the matter. The petitioner’s father made a representation to the Revenue Authorities on 21.02.2022 through Registered Post. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that being aggrieved by inaction of the Revenue Authorities, the petitioner’s father filed Writ Petition No. 7324 of 2022, which was disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court 3 dated 25.03.2022, directing the Revenue Authorities to consider the Sadabainama in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that on 16.02.2022 when the petitioner tried to make construction in the land, the respondent No.2 obstructed the petitioner and presented a report to the Police to that effect. A news item was published in Sakshi Daily Newspaper on 16.02.2022 regarding encroachment by the petitioner over the land in Sy.No.373/4 without having any right, title over the property and obstructed the Revenue Authorities in discharging their official duties and abused them. Basing on such allegations, a case has been registered by the Police against the petitioner vide Crime No.11 of 2022, dated 17.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 447, 341 and 506 IPC. 9. Learned counsel would submit that it is not the case that the petitioner has trespassed the Government land. The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased property under un-registered Sale Deed long back and the family has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Their application for regularization of unregistered sale deed is pending before the Revenue Authorities. Hence, the question of trespass does not arise. 10. Learned counsel would submit that only basing on the news item published in the Sakshi news paper, the Revenue Authorities obstructed the petitioner to make construction and lodged a false complaint against them. 4 11. Learned counsel would further submit that to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC, the ingredients of assault should be there against the victim. On the face of it, the allegations in the complaint would show that the petitioner obstructed the Revenue Authorities, who tried to restrain him in proceeding with the construction. 12. Learned counsel would submit that the Revenue Authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, in case, it is a government land. 13. Learned counsel finally submits that the petitioner has not done anything with guilty intention in order to commit crime. Hence, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that during pendency of the present petition, the Police after completion of investigation filed Charge Sheet in this matter. There is verifiable material, which requires investigation at full length of trial is present and it is not a fit case to quash and prays to dismiss the petition. 15. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. According to the petitioner, his father purchased the said property under an unregistered sale deed in the year 1970 from the original owner. The petitioner further contends that it is a not a 5 Government land and it is a private patta land belongs to one Armabakkam Mannaru S/o Muragaiah, who is the owner of the property and his name was also reflected in fair adangal of the village for the year 1956. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s father submitted an application to the Revenue Authorities. In the light of the Government Orders issued from time to time viz., G.O.Ms.No.511, dated 10.10.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 31.01.2020 for regularization of said property. 16. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s father carried the matter in W.P.No. 7324 of 2022 challenging the inaction of the Revenue Authorities on the application made by him and the same was disposed of on 25.03.2022, directing the Revenue Authorities to pass orders in accordance with law. Nothing has been placed before this Court about any order passed by the Revenue Authorities so far. 17. As rightly put by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Writ Petition was filed after registration of the present case. It appears that there is a dispute regarding the nature of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the Adangal shows the name of vendor of the petitioner. 18. Be that as it may, the fact remains that basing on an unregistered sale deed said to have been executed by the alleged owner of the property, the petitioner and his family are in settled possession. The silence on the part of the Revenue Authorities is also visible. As rightly put by learned counsel for 6 the petitioner that offence of trespass does not arise in the present case. Since it is not the case, where the petitioner and his family members are trying to encroach the property of the Government, by virtue of the alleged unregistered sale deed claiming their possession over the property, such being the case, the criminal intention to commit any crime by trespassing into the Government property cannot be a ground to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which is mere abuse of process of law. However, the Revenue Authorities are at liberty to act accordingly and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, in case, if the land is a Government land. 19. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _____________________________________________ DR. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA,J Date : 29.01.2025 KK 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2551 OF 2022 29.01.2025 KK