SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
Hyderabad: A land dispute between two farmers in Shamirpet has ended up defining the limits of a specific route of appeal before the Telangana High Court, after a division bench ruled that an appeal seeking to effectively halt a criminal case cannot be filed under the “letters patent” mechanism, a colonial-era provision that lets a person appeal a single judge’s order to a two-judge bench of the same court, but only within a defined set of circumstances.
Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin dismissed the appeal filed by 67-year-old farmer Kadannagari Babu, holding that what he was really asking for, which was a declaration wiping out the criminal case against him, amounted to seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
The relief falls outside what such an appeal is meant to cover.
Land dispute behind case
The case began when another farmer, Kadannagari Munu Swamy, accused Babu of trespassing onto his land, damaging property and threatening him. Acting on Munu Swamy’s complaint, Shamirpet Police registered a criminal case and eventually filed a charge sheet in court.
Babu first went to a single judge of the High Court, seeking a declaration that the case against him was illegal, arbitrary and violated his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He maintained that the real dispute was a civil one, already the subject of litigation before a trial court, and alleged that Munu Swamy was using the criminal case as leverage to pressure him into a compromise in that civil matter.
The single judge did not go as far as quashing the case but did direct police to refrain from taking any coercive action against Babu unless they followed due legal process. Unsatisfied with only that protection, Babu took the matter further, filing the present appeal before the division bench.
Why the appeal was thrown out
Babu’s counsel argued that what a petition is called should not determine whether an appeal against it is allowed, relying on a Supreme Court ruling on this point, and separately cited a Punjab and Haryana High Court precedent involving preventive detention where a similar appeal had been allowed despite the case having criminal overtones.
The state’s Home Department, represented by government pleader Mahesh Raje, along with counsel for Munu Swamy, opposed the appeal, arguing that Babu was, in substance, asking the court to quash the first information report (FIR) and the case built on it. This matter that falls squarely within the court’s criminal jurisdiction rather than the kind of civil or constitutional matter that a letters patent appeal is designed for.
The division bench agreed with this reasoning and dismissed Babu’s appeal, leaving in place the single judge’s order that had already barred police from taking coercive action against him without due process, even as the underlying criminal case continues.
SOURCE : SIASAT
