G JANARDHANA REDDY Vs. A NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.3 of 2006 of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor relating to the offence punishable under Section 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The first respondent filed private complaint in the lower Court against the petitioner alleging the offence punishable under Section 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of written statement, counter and affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief filed by the petitioner as defendant in O.S.No.966 of 1998 of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor filed by the complainant as plaintiff for removing compound wall in the plaint schedule property therein and for delivery of possession. Subject matter of the suit is Ac.0-03 cents of site in S.No.210/2 of Nangamangalam village of Gudipala Mandal. It is the first respondent's contention in the suit that Ac.0-03 cents of site covered by the disputed wall is part of his ancestral property. The petitioner had no personal or pecuniary interest in that site of Ac.0-03 cents. His family members have been acting as Trustees and doing Poojari service in three temples of Moogaputallamma Diety, Panchala Devata and Bhajanamandiram located in the village. The villagers constructed temples and were performing Poojas and festivals in the temples by raising funds from the public. The disputed wall and the disputed site of Ac.0-03 cents enclosed by the wall are contended to be part of the temple site and in possession of the temple since more than 30 years prior to filing of the suit. In support of his claim, the 1st respondent filed cist receipt, copies of revenue records like 10(1) accounts, Adangals, Re-survey and settlement register, F.M.B sketch, village plan etc., in the suit along with the plaint and also marked them as exhibits. It is contention of the petitioner as the 7th defendant in the suit that all the documents filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff are fabricated and forged using his position as revenue official. At this stage, it may be noted that the 1st respondent retired from service as Mandal Revenue Officer in the same district. He also worked in the Collector's Office, Chittoor and also in then Chittoor Taluk Office in several capacities during his service. The petitioner is working as Head Master in Higher Secondary School.

(3.) Firstly, it has to be seen whether averments or allegations contained in pleading and oral evidence of the parties constitute defamatory statements. Even though the 1st respondent claimed disputed land of Ac.0-03 cents as his ancestral property, he could not produce any title deed for the said land standing in the name of any of his ancestors. Mainly for that reason, the civil Court dismissed the 1st respondent's suit O.S. No.966 of 1993 with costs by judgment and decree dated 13.09.2004. The 1st respondent relied upon only revenue records in his favour in support of his claim for disputed land of Ac.0-03 cents. The defendants in that suit particularly the petitioner as 7th defendant therein has no other go except to attack those revenue records. That is the reason why the petitioner contended in the civil suit and filed pleadings as well as affidavit in lieu of his examination- in-chief stating that those revenue records are fabricated and forged. Without stopping there, the petitioner further pleaded in the civil suit that the 2nd respondent fabricated those records taking advantage of his official position as a revenue officer. The civil Court in its judgment in O.S. No.966 of 1993 did not give any finding whether revenue records filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff were genuine or fabricated. The civil Court without going into that controversy came, to the conclusion that even copies of revenue records filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent show existence of temple in the disputed land. The 1st respondent did not make any endeavour before the civil Court to prove truth of copies of those revenue records by summoning original records from the offices concerned and by examining persons who prepared those original revenue records. Of course, as the matter now stands, judgment dated 13.09.2004 in O.S. No.966 of 1993 did not become final as appeal in A.S. No.155 of 2004 is pending in the District Court, Chittoor.