APHC010182382020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2637/2020 Between: SIRISETTY RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE GURU MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. NALLA VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY STATION I LOUSE OFFICER/ I TOWN POLICE STATION/ VIZIANAGARAM AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. GOLAGALAAPPAYYAMMA, W/CHINN AYYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. GOLLA VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR 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 Petitioner / Accused No.8, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.836 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram for the 2 offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. 2. Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. None appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations made against the Petitioner to attract the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, Accused No.7, who is the wife of the Petitioner, purchased the property from Accused No.3 under a registered document for a valid consideration and subsequently sold away the same to some other person and the Petitioner is no way connected with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that the Respondent No.2 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and the same is pending. It is submitted that the matter is purely of civil nature and the same is given the colour of criminal offence. In the absence of specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner, continuation of criminal proceedings against him is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, there are allegations of conspiracy against the Petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the same cannot be decided at this stage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the matter requires full-fledged trial and 1 for short ‘IPC’ 3 as such, it is not a fit case for quashment. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 is the daughter of one Bura Bangaramma. One Bura Suri, who is the father of Respondent No.2, during his life time, purchased land of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in S.No.81/17 and 81/18 of K.L.Puram Panchayat Limits, Vizianagaram under a registered sale deed in the year 1978 and subsequently he died. After the death of the father of Respondent No.2, Accused Nos.1 and 2 approached her mother stating that the land purchased by the father of Respondent No.2 got good value for real estate business and asked her to execute power of attorney for converting the lands into plots to sell the same for good profits. Thereafter, having conspired, Accused Nos.1 and 2 made the mother of Respondent No.2 to execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of Accused No.3 for selling the said land. While so, Bura Bangaramma died in the year 1996. Subsequently, Accused Nos.1 to 3 having conspired with Accused Nos.4 to 8, converted the land into house sites, sold away bits of land by impersonating a woman Bura Narasamma with forged signatures and thumb impressions. 6. The material placed on record would show that, the mother of Respondent No.2 alleged to have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Accused No.3 on 02.01.1989. Whereas, it is the case of Respondent No.2 that her mother died in the year 1996. Further, the copy of registered sale deed dated 25.04.2015 would show that Accused No.7 purchased the property from Accused No.3, who is the alleged to have been 4 the GPA holder of the mother of Respondent No.2. Therefore, it is clear that said sale deed was executed by Accused No.3 subsequent to the death of the mother of Respondent No.2, which is not tenable under law. Furthermore, Respondent No.2 herein filed O.S.No.46 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the subject property, wherein, the wife of Petitioner / Accused No.8 was shown as Defendant No.6 and the same is pending. 7. As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, there are specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided during trial before the trial Court. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the presence of the Petitioner / Accused No.8 before the trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the learned trial Judge. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:21.08.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2637 of 2020 Dt.21.08.2025 Dinesh