IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 13' 3 5i m- q\v O'}' o ■/ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2736 OF 2077 Between: 1. Kanuru Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Nagabhushanam, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 64-5-11, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada -520010, Krishna District. 2. Kanuru Hema Venkata Krishna Prasad Aged about 31 S/o. K. Venkateswara Rao, years, Occ; Business, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada -520010, Krishna District R/o. D. No. 64-5-11, 3. M.V.N.Prasad, S/o. M Shram Murthy, Aged Private Employee Pakeerugudem, Vijayawada (Urban) Krishna District about 52 years, Occ: Near SCREW Bridge, 520010. D/No. 40-17-18, ...PETITIONERS / ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District rep by its Public Prosecutor, High court of ...RESPONDENT Kanuru Sai Krishna Prasad, S/o K. Koteswara Rao USA, represented by GPA Holder Kanuru Sowbagya Lakshmi Kumar, #60-22-13, SBI Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna Presently residing at Kutumba District ...RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in crime No. 87 of 2020 on the file of the P.S., Padamata, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh dated 07.02.2020 against the petitioners/ accused. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: Kanuru Sai Krishna Prasad, S/o K. Koteswara Rao, Presently residing at USA, represented by GPA Holder Kanuru Sowbagya Lakshmi Kutumba Kumar, #60-22-13, SBI Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...PETITIONER / RESPONDENT N0.2 AND 1. Kanuru Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Nagabhushanam, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o. D. No. 64-5-11, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada -520010, Krishna District. 2. Kanuru Hema Venkata Krishna Prasad, S/o. K. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 31 years, Occ; Business, R/o. D. No. 64-5-11, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada -520010, Krishna District 3. M.V.N.Prasad, S/o. M Shram Murthy, Aged about 52 years, Occ; Private Employee, D/No. 40-17-18 Near SCREW Bridge Pakeerugudem, Vijayawada (Urban) Krishna District, 520010. ...RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS IN CRL.P Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hon ble High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders of stay granted in lA 1/2022 in CRLP. 2736/2022 dated 27-04-2022 and dismiss the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kamalakara Rao Bathina, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of M/s Bharadwaj Associates for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER : 7, 1 APHC010179492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2736 OF 2022 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) Kanuru Venkateswara Rao, and Others AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- The instant Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [for short,‘B.N.S.S’], is filed on behalf of the petitioners/accused seeking quash the proceedings in Crime No.87 of 2020 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioners/ Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 471 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C also Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908. and 3. Heard Mr. Bathina Kamalakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/ State and M/s Bharadwaj Associates represented by Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the Accused 1 to 3. Accused No.2 is the son of Accused No.l; Accused No.3 is an employee of Accused No.1 and they have nothing to do with the present case. It is alleged against the petitioners that they have created a fake document and forged the signature of their grandfather pertaining to a property situated in R.S.No. 75/2 of Vijayawada. 5. A complaint was lodged by the General Power of Attorney Holder, who is none other than the mother of the complainant and who does not know anything about the case. In fact, father of the complainant, who is brother Accused No.1 lodged a criminal case i.e C.C.No.507 of 2013 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada making same allegations for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 467, 468 and 469 IPC. The said case was ended in acquittal on 16.07.2014. very 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that grandfather of Accused No.1 executed a Will on 30.12.1962, according to 3 which, Accused No.1 and his brothers got partitioned the properties. Father of Accused No.1 executed a Registered Will dated 13.07.2011 bequeathing the subject property in favour of Accused No.1. Only to harass the petitioners, this case has been lodged with an ulterior motive. 7. Learned counsel would submit that the complainant’s father, who is brother of Accused No.1 was given in adoption to the paternal grandfather Sri Subbaiah on 19.12.1955. Father of Accused No.1 Sri K. Nagabhushanam is the natural father of complainant’s father. Accused No.2 filed a^suit in O.S.No. 222 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vijayawada against third party seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, after death of his father. Registered Will dated 13.07.2011 was the subject matter of the said suit and the said suit was decreed in favour of Accused No.1 directing the third party to vacate and deliver the vacant possession, apart from payment of arrears of rent. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that one Narra Koteswaramma, who is sister of Accused No.1 also filed a suit in O.S.No. 22 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada against Accused No.1 and others seeking partition of the family properties. The said property was shown as Item No.1 in ‘C’ schedule in the said suit and the said suit is pending for adjudication. 9. Learned counsel finally submits that the matter is purely civil in nature and continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners alleging that they V have forged the signature of their grandfather pertaining to a property situated in R.S.No. 75/2 of Vijayawada is an abuse of process of law. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that earlier case lodged against the petitioners on the complaint of his father in the year 2013 is different from the present facts of the case. When the complainant was proceeding with the developmental activity in the subject site, the accused threatened them to stop process with the aid of fabricated document, because of the act of petitioners, developmental activities has been stalled. 11. Learned counsel would submit that the complainant’s father was given in adoption to his paternal grandfather Sri Subbaiah. There is verifiable material, which needs investigation and full length of trial is very much required to cull out truth or otherwise of the facts of the case. There are no grounds for quashment and prays for dismissal of the petition. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in the vacate stay petition filed along with counter, would submit that C.C.No.507 of 2013 was withdrawn by his father and it does not amount to acquittal so question of double jeopardy does not arise. The petitioners herein never referred about the Will executed by father of Accused No.1, dated 13.07.2011 in the earlier litigation and prays for dismissal of the petition. 13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that may pass appropriate orders in favour of the complainant. the Court 5 14. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the complaint and other material placed on record, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The complainant is residing in United States, his mother being the General Power of Attorney holder lodged the present complaint. There is no dispute about the fact that the father of the complainant lodged a criminal case against the petitioners, which is C.C.No.507 of 2013 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. A cursory look at the judgment in C.C.No.507 of 2013, it is the evidence of complainant’s father that he does not know the contents of his complaint. Accused No.1 in the said case is his brother i.e petitioner No.1 herein. Accused No.2 in the said case is the grandfather of complainant herein. Complainant’s father as PW-1 in the said case admitted about the property disputes with his father and brothers, but disowned the contents in the said case. After full-fledged trial, the case was ended in acquittal. I 15. Arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the case was withdrawn but it is not ended in acquittal and that question of application of Section 300 of IPC does not arise, fall to ground. No contra material placed on record disputing the case of the petitioner that he filed O.S.No.222 of 2022 against the tenant seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent after death of Sri K. Nagabhushanam, who is father of Accused No.1 by virtue of the alleged Registered Will dated 13.07.2011 i.e Ex.A4. The said suit was decreed in favour of Accused No.1, considering the Registered Will said to 6 have been executed by Sri K. Nagabhushanam bequeathing the property Accused No.1. That apart, a civil suit has been filed by the sister of Accused No.1 seeking partition showing the subject property as Item No.1 in the ‘C’ schedule and the said suit is pending. to 16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of C.C.No. 507 of 2013, which has reached the finality, lodging the present against the petitioners with the very same allegations is sheer abuse of process of law. The matter is purely civil in nature. Prima facie, no offence is made out against the petitioners. However, the complainant is at liberty to work out his remedies regarding the subject property before competent Civil Court in accordance with law. case 17. In that view, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/ A1 to A3 vide Crime No. 87 of 2020 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District are hereby quashed. SD/- G.HELANAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /? 1c SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The SHO, Padamata Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna 2. One CC to Sri. Kamalakara Rao Bathina, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] District at 5. THREE CD COPIES SGM TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 29/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2736 of 2022 ^andh^ S’ 18 FEB 2025 a3- ^ Curtetii section PATCV55>^ ALLOWING THE CRLP