APHC010196542022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2950/2022 Between: Allada Bhaskara Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO 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 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.2950/2022 2. Heard Sri T.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence. A false case has been lodged. Even the allegations made in the complaint on the face of it shows, the matter is of civil in nature which is converted into the Criminal case. Learned counsel would further submit that no civil suit is pending relating to the said transaction. Learned counsel would further submit that the offence under Sections 406 and 420 cannot go together. Learned counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that there is verifiable material which required investigation at full length of trial in this matter. After due investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet. The court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it is alleged against the petitioner that without having any title over the property, collected an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the defacto complainant to sell the subject property. Thereafter, the defacto complainant on enquiry came to know that the petitioner had no title over the 3 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.2950/2022 property. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard and perused the material on record. It appears notice which was ordered to be served on the respondent No.2 is not served. Proof of service is not filed. As can be seen from the record, the CC of the year 2018 is pending before the Trial Court which has been stayed by the Cooperative Bench of this court vide orders dated 22.04.2022. 6. In that view, considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the charge sheet would show that the allegations made against the petitioner to the fact that without having title to the property, claiming to be the owner of the property, collected amount from the defacto complainant. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot appreciate the facts but can only evaluate the material placed before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that there is some interpolation regarding the signature of the Executant as well as corrections made in the alleged receipt of Rs.1,00,000/-. These contentions require verification at the full length of trial. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot go together. Learned Trial Judge may appreciate such contention and proceed with the matter for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 4 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.2950/2022 7. In that view, the petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the Trial Court in his defence. Learned Trial Judge may appreciate them and take appropriate decision according to law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without giving any adjournments in a casual way by mere asking. Taking into consideration of the age of the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court is dispensed with unless his presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 03.01.2025 UPS 5 DR.VJPJ, CRLP.No.2950/2022 06 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2950 OF 2022 Dated :03.01.2025 UPS