V MADHUSUDHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 requesting to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.220 of 2012, dated 11.04.2012 on the file of Chanda Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the 1 st petitioner is an Engineer by profession and has been executing the work of petitioners 2 to 4. The 5 th petitioner is a permanent resident of Tirupathi and has nothing to do with the land covered by Survey No.12 of Chanda Nagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District or land covered by Survey Nos.288, 289, 291/part, 292/A, 292/AA, 293/A and 293/AA of Chanda Nagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. The petitioners 2 to 4 are law abiding citizens and hail from respectable family with good and cultured social perspective. The 2 nd petitioner is authorized to represent petitioners 3 and 4. The petitioners have been wrongly shown as accused in the FIR filed at the instance of 2 nd respondent in Crime No.220/2012 under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act, 1982). The petitioners 3 and 4 are the absolute owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.5.3 guntas having purchased under Survey Nos.288, 289, 291/Part, 292/A, 292/AA, 293/A and 293/AA of Chanda Nagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District through Registered Sale deed Nos.7484/95, 7634/95, 7635/95, 8248/95 and 8053/95, dated 13.07.1995. As owners and possessors of the lands, petitioners 3 and 4 have obtained permission from GHMC for construction of compound wall all along the open land covered by the above survey numbers. The 1 st petitioner No.1 was entrusted by the petitioner No.2 with the work of surveying, marking, cleaning and levelling the land as preparatory work to ultimately take up construction of compound wall on behalf of petitioners 3 and 4. The petitioners with a view to enclose the open land belonging to them, have undertaken the assigned work on 08.04.2012 only in Survey No.288, etc. The petitioners have neither traversed beyond their open land covered by survey numbers read above nor in any manner dumped debris, etc. into Cheruvu covered by Survey No.12 of Chanda Nagar village. On account of refusal on the part of the petitioners to yield to the blackmail threats of local reporters, a press item was published on 10.04.2012. The 2 nd respondent/de facto complainant without verification of revenue records and surroundings of cheruvu, under a mistake of fact and law filed a complaint before the Chanda Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad on 11.04.2012. In the complaint it was alleged that the 1 st petitioner, purporting to execute work in land covered by survey number No.288, etc., has been carrying out the work in tank covered by Survey No.12 of Chanda Nagar Village by dumping debris and trying to occupy the same. The de facto complainant alleged that a panchanama was conducted on the site. The petitioners have paid Rs.3,21,000/ - to GHMC towards part of development charges for construction of compound wall and permission was granted on 04.06.2010. While granting permission, the authorities have taken note of existence of cheruvu on southern side and maintaining the required set back between the green belt area and the open land of the petitioners. The proposed construction of compound wall is well within the land owned and possessed by the petitioners 3 and 4 and in accordance with the permission granted by GHMC, Hyderabad. The land use certificate clearly sets out the use of Survey Nos.288, etc. belonging to petitioners 3 and 4 as residential use. When the compound wall construction is undertaken on their land and in accordance with the law, the alleged act of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC does not arise and constructing a compound wall all along the land is an integral part of their proprietary right, as such action does not amount to land grabbing and prayed the Court to quash the petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are constructing the compound wall around their land after obtaining permission from GHMC on 04.06.2010; that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the Survey Nos.288, 289, 291/Part, 292/A, 292/AA, 293/A and 293/AA of Chanda Nagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District admeasuring Ac.5.3 guntas having purchased under Registered Sale deed Nos.7484/95, 7634/95, 7635/95, 8248/95 and 8053/95, dated 13.07.1995 for a valid consideration and to protect their land, the 1 st petitioner who is an Engineer by profession has been entrusted the work of surveying, marking, cleaning and levelling the land and to construct the compound wall around Ac.5.3 guntas covered in the above said survey numbers; that the M.R.O. (2 nd respondent) failed to consider the documents filed by the petitioners and got filed the present false case with a view to cause loss to the petitioners; that the allegations in the complaint given by the 2 nd respondent do not constitute the commission of any offence much less the offence under Section 447 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Act, 1982 and continuation of the said complaint is abuse of process of Court; that the de facto complainant make general and omnibus allegations implicating all the petitioners even against the 5 th petitioner who is a permanent resident of Tirupathi and having nothing to do with the land; that when the third petitioner sought for permission for construction of a compound wall to the Commissioner, GHMC on 22.10.2009, the authorities addressed a letter to the 3 rd petitioner asking her to remit an amount of Rs.3,21,925/ - towards building permit fee and sub -division charges and on paying the said amount, vide Permit No.5/5, the permission was accorded and the petitioners never encroached the land situated in Survey No.12; that instead of considering the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners, the MRO got issued a false complaint and prayed the Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.220 of 2012. The learned counsel relied on a case -law reported in Rajinder and others Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 5 SCC 187, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Para 20 and 21 as follows: