APHC010151392022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2577/2022 Between: 1. KATIKIDALA BALAKRISHNA, S/O. CHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. BALAYOGIPETA, MUMMIDIVARAM NAGARAPANCHAYATH, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. S.RAM PRASAD, S/O. SRIHARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3/7, EAST STREET, MADHAVAPURAM, ALANDUR, ST. THOMAS MOUNT, ALANDUR, KANCHEEPURAM, TAMIL NADU - 600016. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O., MUMMIDIVARAM POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2. CHIKKAM SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. PALLIVARIPALEM, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. C V R RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.228 of 2021 on the file of the Court of 2 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram for the offences under Sections 448 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. 2. Heard Sri M.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that a comprehensive civil suit is pending between the parties. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram seeking declaration and consequential permanent injunction. During pendency of the said suit, I.A.No.414 of 2020 was filed by Respondent No.2 herein along with others, seeking temporary injunction and the said petition was dismissed on merits on 09.03.2021 with the following observation: “Considering facts and circumstances and considering the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that even as per admitted case of the petitioners, the respondents are descendants of Sri Peda Balayogi and China Balayogi and their supporters. As per earlier resolutions they were allowed to render services in the asramam. At this stage, if injunction is granted, it may cause serious inconvenience to the respondents who were allowed to render services in the asramam.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would further submit that, immediately on the next day of the said Order, the present crime has been registered against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 427 and 448 read with 34 IPC. It is further submitted that, exactly after a year, a case in Crime No.68 of 2022 has been registered against the Petitioners on the 1 for short ‘IPC’ 3 premise that they have criminally trespassed into the Committee room by breaking open the door locks and rearranged new Godrej Steel locks. Learned counsel would further submit that, a comprehensive suit is pending and there is a clear observation as to the status of the Petitioners herein as descendants of Peda Balayogi and China Balayogi and their supporters and as per earlier resolutions they were allowed to render services in the asramam. Learned counsel would submit that, when Respondent No.2 could not get order of temporary injunction before the Civil Court, they have resorted to lodge a false case against the Petitioners. It is submitted that the present case has been registered against the Petitioners only to trouble them and as an arm twist to settle the scores in the civil suit. Learned counsel would finally submit that, even as per the contents of the complaint, no offence is made out against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, it is alleged against the Petitioners that they have criminally trespassed into the Committee room by breaking open the door locks and rearranged new Godrej Steel locks. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of their status and for consequential permanent injunction. There is no material placed before this Court to show that Respondent No.2 preferred any appeal 4 against the dismissal of their petition for temporary injunction. In that view, Respondent No.2 could not get any injunction order against the Petitioners. That apart, there is an observation by the Civil Court regarding the role of the Petitioners and their attachment to the Asramam. Such being the case, this Court is of the view that, prima facie no offence either under Section 448 or 427 IPC against the Petitioners. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused in C.C.No.228 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram for the offences under Sections 448 and 427 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.02.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2577 of 2022 Dt.24.02.2025 Dinesh