Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

High Court Dismisses Petition in Property Dispute Case, Upholds Criminal Charges Despite Delayed FIR

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal petition, emphasizing the importance of upholding criminal charges in property disputes. The case, presided over by Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, involved allegations of criminal trespass and assault, stemming from a heated property dispute between B Siva Sankar Reddy and B Srinivasul Reddy.

In his order dated November 20, 2023, Justice Rao firmly stated, “The existence of a civil dispute does not negate the possibility of criminal charges.” This remark came in the context of a charged altercation on a disputed property, leading to a police complaint and subsequent legal battle.

The case, registered as Criminal Petition No. 4200 of 2019, revolved around an incident on June 28, 2016. The petitioner, accused of trespassing and assaulting the respondent on the latter’s land, faced charges under Sections 447, 324, and 506 of the IPC. Despite a delay in the registration of the FIR, attributed to police inaction, the Court found no grounds to quash the proceedings.

Highlighting a significant legal point, the judgment also addressed the necessity of an affidavit in private complaints under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Justice Rao referenced the Supreme Court’s stance in the Priyanka Srivastava case and acknowledged the Uttarakhand High Court’s view that non-filing of an affidavit is a curable defect.

In a decisive conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the proceedings in C.C. No.135 of 2018 against the petitioner to continue. This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring that criminal aspects in civil disputes are not overlooked, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar complexities.

Date of Decision: 20th November 2023

B SIVA SANKAR REDDY VS B SRINIVASUL REDDY

Similar News