1 APHC010148362021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2367/2021 Between: Patnala Kotireddy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No.148 of 2021 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The de-facto complainant presented a report to the police alleging that one Smt. Ayinampudi Satyavathi, who purchased 166.675 sq. yards in Sy.No.141, Aganampudi Village, from Sri Chekuri Nagaraju, was in possession of the property. She alleged that Nagisetty Srinu @ Poolu Srinu, Erothi Ganesh, Danalakshmi, Kolanti Devi, and Giri (Press Reporter) were interfering and trying to encroach on her land. (ii) It is further alleged that one Smt. Chekuri Satyalakshmi, who purchased 0.05 acres in Sy.No.141, Plot No. 37, Aganampudi Village, from Smt. Cherukuri Lakshmi, was in possession of the property. She alleged that Kasimkota Appalanarasamma, Lagudu Ramanamma, Cherukuri Lakshmi, and Bonigi Srimma Murthy, instigated by Nagisetty Srinu @ Poolu Srinu, Patnala Kotireddy @ PK Reddy, Erothi Ganesh, and Giri, trying to demolish her property by filing complaints with GVMC authorities. (iii) Enquiry revealed that Nagisetty Srinu @ Poola Srinu of Gajuwaka Mandal was involved in multiple land grabbing offenses, creating unregistered 3 documents and selling land in Sy.Nos.82, 83, 86 (Gajuwaka) and 141 (Aganampudi). He, along with Patnala Koti Reddy (posing as a media person) and Erothi Ganesh, engaged in land disputes. Srinu has a history of land- related crimes, with FIRs registered in 2011, 2016, 2017, and 2019 at Gajuwaka and New Port Police Stations, and a rowdy sheet opened against him at Gajuwaka Police Station. (iv) A letter was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, on 04.03.2021, requesting criminal action against Nagisetty Srinu @ Poolu Srinu, Patnala Kotireddy @ PK Reddy, Erothi Ganesh, and Giri to maintain public peace and order. (v) Basing on the report, the Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station, registered the same as a case in Crime No.148 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. Heard Sri Abdul Matheen, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report lacks details of any specific incident or document related to the alleged offence and does not establish the petitioners' involvement. He further submits that even assuming that the petitioners have instigated any one to give complaint to 4 GVMC for demolition of a property, the same do not attract any of the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 5. He further submits that the entire land in Sy.No.114 of Aganampudi is government land and Smt Kasimkota Appalanarasamma, Lagudu Ramanamma, cherukuri Lakshmi and Bonangi Sri Rama Murthy were given possession certificate each for an extent of 60 sq.yards of land in Sy.No.114. Against the interference of Tahsildar, Gajuwaka, the said persons have approached this Court vide W.P.No.103 of 2018 and this Court has passed an interim order on 05.01.2018 directing the respondents therein not to dispossess the petitioners from their residential sites admeasuring 60 sq. yards each in Sy.No.141 of Aganampudi Village, Visakhapatnam District. The 2nd respondent designed this FIR with malicious intent to deprive Ragudu Ramanamma and others of their rights, supporting the rival claim of 3rd parties, and implicated the petitioners only to prevent them from supporting the weaker group. He also argued that there are civil suits pending between the parties and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners. The truth, or otherwise, of the said allegations will be revealed during the course of the trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5 7. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/accused in Crime No.148 of 2021 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the IPC? 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others 1 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance 7 of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 10. Keeping in view the legal position stated above, before examining the facts of the case herein, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Sections 447, 427, 468, 471 of IPC, which reads as under:- 447. Punishment for criminal trespass.—Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.— Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 8 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.— Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 3[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 3[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 3[document or electronic record]. 11. The allegation against the petitioners is that Smt Kasimkota Appalanarasamma, Lagudu Ramanamma, Cherukuri Lakshmi and Bonangi Sri Rama Murthy, at the instigation of A1 and the petitioners/A2 and A3, were trying to demolish the properties of Smt A.Satyavathi and Smt Chekuri Satyalakshmi. 12. A perusal of the record reveals that when the revenue authorities tried to interfere with the possession of the said Smt Kasimkota Appalanarasamma, Lagudu Ramanamma, Cherukuri Lakshmi and Bonangi Sri Rama Murthy, they have filed W.P.No.1073 of 2018 before this Court, wherein, this Court vide interim order dt.05.01.2018 while observing that possession certificates have been issued in favour of the petitioners, granted an interim order directing the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, not to dispossess the petitioners from their residential sites admeasuring 60 sq. yards each in Sy.No.141 of Aganampudi Village, Visakhapatnam District. 13. From the above, it can be understood that the said persons i.e., Smt Kasimkota Appalanarasamma, Lagudu Ramanamma, Cherukuri Lakshmi and Bonangi Sri Rama Murthy, were claiming possession over the property by 9 virtue of possession certificates as well as the interim order obtained by them in W.P.No.1073 of 2018 whereby the Tahsildar is restrained from interfering with their possession. That being the case, the Tahsildar ought not to have lodged the present complaint. Though it is alleged in the complaint that the enquiry revealed that A1 is involved in land grabbing offences along with the petitioners/A2 and A3, the complaint does not reveal as to when such enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar. Further except alleging that A1 is involved in the offences along with the petitioners/A2 and A3, there are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners/A2 and A3 as to the role played by them in the alleged offences. The complaint would reveal that the allegations are mainly attributed against A1, against whom rowdy sheet was also opened in Gajuwaka Police Station. 14. In the absence of any specific allegations or overt acts attributed against the petitioners/A2 and A3 as noted above and in view of the fact that the Tahsildar has resorted to lodge complaint despite there being an interim order by this Court restraining him from interfering with the property in respect of which he lodged the complaint, this Court is the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 10 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 & A3 in Crime No.148 of 2021 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.10.02.2025 JLV