| Case Name: | K.Prabhakar Rao And Others v. The State of A.P.Rep. |
| Equivalent Citation: | 2015(1)ALD(Crl.) 1 |
| Date of Judgement: | 25 November, 2014 |
| Court: | Andhra High Court |
| Petitioner: | K.Prabhakar Rao and Others |
| Respondent: | The State of A.P. Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Hyderabad, and another |
| Bench: | J. Dr.B.Siva Sankara Rao |
FACT OF THE CASE
– This case is a criminal revision case filed by the petitioners who are the office bearers of an approved and registered gated community named Lalitha Bloomfield Home Owners Association (in brief the Association) comprising of 45 villas, situated in Survey No.4, Khajaguda, Ranga Reddy district. The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal order of the Special Magistrate Court-II, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy district, in their petition seeking to stop the criminal proceedings against them and release them from the charges under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 IPC.
– The case arose out of a complaint filed by the second respondent who is an employee of M/s Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, the developer of the gated community. The complaint alleged that on 11.08.2011, the petitioners and other members of the Association obstructed and threatened him and his men who were carrying out construction work in Villa No.22, which is adjacent to a green belt/park area in the layout. The complaint alleged that the petitioners illegally detained him and his men and prevented them from entering the layout with their material and tools. The complaint alleged that the petitioners also abused and intimidated him and his men with dire consequences.
– The petitioners denied the allegations and claimed that they were acting in good faith to protect their green belt/park area from illegal encroachment by the second respondent and his employer M/s Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited. The petitioners claimed that they had lodged complaints with GHMC and police against the illegal construction in Villa No.22, which is owned by the sister-in-law and a benami of the Managing Director of M/s Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited. The petitioners also claimed that they had filed a writ petition in the High Court and obtained a stay order against the illegal construction in Villa No.22 and the green belt/park area.
– The petitioners contended that there was no sufficient material on record to prove the offences alleged against them and that the complaint was fabricated and motivated by revenge and malice. The petitioners invoked Section 258 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Magistrate to stop the proceedings at any stage and release the accused if there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding further. The petitioners prayed for their release from the charges under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 IPC.
– The Special Magistrate Court-II, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy district, dismissed the petition of the petitioners by order dated 10.05.2013. The court held that there was prima facie evidence to show that the petitioners had committed the offences alleged against them and that Section 258 Cr.P.C., was not applicable to their case as they were not charged under Chapter XX Cr.P.C., but under Chapter XVI Cr.P.C.
– Aggrieved by the order of the Special Magistrate Court-II, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy district, the petitioners filed this criminal revision case in the Andhra High Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether Section 258 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Magistrate to stop the criminal proceedings at any stage and release the accused if there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding further, is applicable to the case where the petitioners are charged under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 IPC.
- Whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 IPC.
- Whether the complaint filed by the second respondent is fabricated and motivated by revenge and malice.
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER
– The petitioner and others are office bearers of a gated community named Lalitha Bloomfield Home Owners Association, which has 45 villas and a security gate.
– On 11.08.2011, the complainant and his men tried to grab their green belt/park area adjacent to Villa No.22 in their layout, which was illegal and against the rules of the association.
– The petitioner and others requested them to stop the illegal construction, but they did not listen. They also complained to GHMC and police, but no action was taken.
– They then filed a writ petition in the High Court and got a stay order against the illegal construction in their green belt/park area, including Villa No.22. The matter is still pending in the High Court.
– The complainant filed a false case against them to take revenge for preventing the illegal encroachment, by accusing them of wrongfully restraining and threatening him and his men.
– The petitioner and others filed an application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., which allows the magistrate to stop the proceedings and release the accused if there is no sufficient evidence against them.
– They argued that there is no evidence to show that they committed any offence under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 of IPC, and that they were not even physically present at the entry gate or Villa No.22 at the time of the alleged incident.
– They also argued that the complainant is an employee of the developer of their layout, M/s Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, and that the owner of Villa No.22 is a sister-in-law and a benami of the managing director of the same company, and that they have a vested interest in grabbing their green belt/park area.
– They prayed to the court to release them from the false case and stop the harassment.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
– The respondent is the State of A.P., represented by the Public Prosecutor.
– The respondent opposed the application filed by the petitioner and others under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., which allows the magistrate to stop the proceedings and release the accused if there is no sufficient evidence against them.
– The respondent argued that there is prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner and others committed offences under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 of IPC, by wrongfully restraining and threatening the complainant and his men, who were carrying out construction work at Villa No.22 in their layout.
– The respondent argued that the petitioner and others were physically present at the entry gate and Villa No.22 at the time of the alleged incident, and that they prevented the complainant and his men from entering or leaving the layout, and also abused them with filthy language.
– The respondent argued that the petitioner and others had no authority to interfere with the construction work at Villa No.22, which was being done with the permission of the owner and the developer of the layout, M/s Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited.
– The respondent argued that the petitioner and others had a malafide intention to grab the green belt/park area adjacent to Villa No.22, which was not part of their layout, and that they filed a false writ petition in the High Court to stop the construction work.
– The respondent argued that the application filed by the petitioner and others under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, as it was not a summary trial, but a warrant case, and that Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was not applicable to warrant cases.
– The respondent prayed to the court to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner and others, and to continue the trial against them.
JUDGEMENT
– The High Court of Andhra Pradesh **dismissed** the revision petition filed by the petitioner and others, and **upheld** the order of the trial court, which had rejected their application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. to stop the proceedings against them.
– The High Court held that the trial court was right in dismissing their application, as there was prima facie evidence to show that they had committed offences under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 of IPC, by wrongfully restraining and threatening the complainant and his men, who were carrying out construction work at Villa No.22 in their layout.
– The High Court also held that the trial court was correct in observing that Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was not applicable to this case, as it was not a summary trial, but a warrant case, and that Section 258 of Cr.P.C. could not be invoked in warrant cases.
– The High Court further held that the petitioner and others had no authority to interfere with the construction work at Villa No.22, which was being done with the permission of the owner and the developer of the layout, M/s Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, and that they had filed a false writ petition in the High Court to stop the construction work.
– The High Court also held that the petitioner and others had a malafide intention to grab the green belt/park area adjacent to Villa No.22, which was not part of their layout, and that they had filed a false case against the complainant to take revenge for preventing the illegal encroachment.
– The High Court concluded that there was no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and others, and that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court, which had dismissed their application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C.
CONCLUSION
The High Court dismissed the petition of the office bearers of a gated community, who had wrongfully restrained and threatened the workers of a construction company, who were building a villa in their layout. The High Court upheld the order of the trial court, which had rejected their plea to stop the proceedings against them. The High Court found that they had no authority to interfere with the construction work, and that they had filed false cases to grab the green belt/park area adjacent to the villa.
written by Shri Vaishnavi intern under legal vidhiya.
