Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10278 (AP)

TURPAKALA DAYANA SALOMI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRLP/2532/2025 · 2025-03-11

Harinath N

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Contd..2P.. APHC010115552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2532 OF 2025 Between: Turpakala Dayana Salomi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): Ld. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were arraigned as A.2 and A.1 in Crime No.229 of 2024 of Narasapuram Town Police Station, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. -2- CRL.P. No.2532 OF 2025 3. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are related to each other. The petitioners are wife and husband, while the 2nd respondent is the brother of the 1st petitioner. There were civil disputes pending between the parties. The petitioners had already filed a suit against the 2nd respondent in O.S. No.75 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narasapur, for recovery of money based on the promissory note, and the same was decreed on 07.01.2025. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent also filed O.S. No.59 of 2018 and 288 of 2019 before the Junior Civil Judge, Narasapur, for permanent injunction and for specific performance of agreement of sale, and the said suits were pending adjudication. 4. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that the pronote, dated 15.06.2016, is fabricated. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent did not take the said defence while the suit was tried on merits. 6. Considering the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Station House Officer, Narasapuram Town Police Station, West Godavari District, to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the purpose of investigation in connection with Crime No.229 of 2024. Contd…3P… -3- CRL.P. No.2532 OF 2025 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed off. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV