CRLP/1655/2008 of T.K. Kodandaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2009

ORDER:

This petition is filed by one of the accused under Section 482Cr.P.C for quashing the F.I.R in Crime No.154 of 2003, dated06.08.2003 of Maredpally Police Station relating to offencespunishable under Sections 448 and 506 I.P.C.

2) On 06.08.2003, the Sub Inspector of Police, Maredpally PoliceStation registered the case on report given by the 11[th] respondent asG.P.A holder of the 12[th] respondent. It is alleged in the report that thedefacto-complainant purchased property bearing No.3/A and 3/A-1,Anjanamma compound, Picket, Secunderabad and is enjoying thesame and that the petitioner along with his associates K.Veera Reddyand others interfered with enjoyment of property and that thereupon theI Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad granted interim injunctionorder in I.A. No.1504 of 2003 against the petitioner, K.Veera Reddyand others and that while so, on 05.08.2003, K.Veera Reddy alongwith his associates armed with sticks, criminally trespassed into thatproperty, abused him and also threatened him with dire consequencesto vacate the premisis. Even as per allegations in the report, the petitioner was not at the scene on 05.08.2003. It was K.Veera Reddyand his associates, who committed offence alleged. According to therespondents’ counsel, the petitioner is the person behind thosepersons.

3) As can be seen from contents of the petition, there is series ofcivil litigation involving the petitioner right from the year 1981onwards. There appears to be some criminal cases also registeredagainst the petitioner in respect of the same litigation. For purpose ofthis petition, the said previous civil and criminal litigation involving thepetitioner may not be much relevant. It has to be seen in this petitionwhether F.I.R in Crime No.154 of 2003 of Maredpally Police Station isliable to be quashed on any ground.

4) The petitioner placing reliance on State of Punjab V. SarwanSingh[[1]], of the Supreme Court and unreported decision dated17.01.2008 in Criminal Petition No.3806 of 2005 of this Courtcontended that till today no charge sheet is filed by the police in thiscrime and that as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the police are barred to filecharge sheet in this crime as it would be barred by limitation. Section448 I.P.C prescribes punishment for house trespass to an extent of oneyear or with fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. But,section 506 I.P.C has got two parts. As per part-I of Section 506 I.P.C,offence of criminal intimidation is punishable with imprisonment to theextent of two years or with fine or with both. Whereas part-II of Section506 I.P.C prescribes punishment with imprisonment which may extendto seven years or with fine or with both, in case the threat is to causedeath or grievous hurt or destruction of property by fire. In the case onhand, as per F.I.R, the accused were stated to have threatened thevictim with dire consequences and went upon house of the victim withsticks. Therefore, the said allegations contained in F.I.R squarelyattracted penal provision under Section 506(Part-II) I.P.C. There is no time limit prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C for completinginvestigation and for filing charge sheet in an offence involving Section506(Part-II) I.P.C which is punishable with imprisonment which mayextend to seven years. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said thatthe police are barred by limitation from filing charge sheet in this crime.

5) In the result, the petition is dismissed.

December 29, 2009

KSH

_____________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

[1]AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1054