IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ■'4 i, TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5257 OF 2022 Between: 1. Sreeramineni Krishnamurthy, S/o. S. Sreenivasulu Naidu Aged about 58 years, R/o. D.No.1-4-15, Srinivasa Puram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District 2. Sreeramineni Padmakar, S/o. S.Sreenivasulu Naidu Aged about 55 years, R/o. Srinivasa Puram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District 3. M. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Subba Reddy Aged about 63 years, R/o. D.No.19-4-3-D/5, Ragunadha Reddy Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1, 3 & 5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by it Public Prosecutor for High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ... Respondent 2. A.Subramanyam, S/o Venkataiah Aged about 68 years, R/o.D.No.19-4- 8H, Plot No. 101, Minakshi Towers, SIV Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Respondent/Complainant »k Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Crime in FIR No. 296 of 2014 on the file of the Tiruchanur Police Station, Chittoor District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crime in FIR No. 296 of 2014 on the file of the Tiruchanur Police Station, Chittoor District, pending disposal of 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 Galla Sudarsana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: • APHC010352682022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5257/2022 Between: 1.SREERAMINENI KRISHNAMURTHY, S/0 S.SREENIVASULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.1-4-15, SRINIVASA PURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOCR DISTRICT 2.SREERAMINENI PADMAKAR,, S/0 S.SREENIVASULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0 SRINIVASA PURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3.M.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, S/0 LATE M. SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 19-4-3-D/5, RAGUNADHA REDDY COLONY, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP- BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2.A SUBRAMANYAM, S/0 VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/0.D.N0.19-4-8H PLOT NO. 101, MINAKSHITOWERS, SIV NAGAR TIRUPATI,CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.GALLA SUDARSANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ is preferred by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, seeking for short ‘Cr.P C'- V ■ quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.296 of 2014 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. 2. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Galla Sudarsana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. Though notice was served on Respondent No.2, none represented on his behalf. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the 3. Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and the allegations leveled against them are false and omnibus. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that. Respondent No.2 is a realtor and running SUR Housing Limited and is trying to grab the property of the Petitioners by hook or crook. Learned counsel would further submit that, Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed O.S.No.133 of 2017 seeking permanent injunction with regard to the subject property, which is pending and status-quo has also been granted therein. Learned counsel would further submit that the present complaint has been filed with false and frivolous allegations only to grab the property of the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that the matter is of civil nature and the allegations attributed against the Petitioners do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. ^ for short‘IPC - .r Contrasting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in Crime No. 296 of 2014 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati? Determination by the Court 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 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 to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 4. 5. 6. secure powers reasons . / Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding 7. torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “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 prime 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 3 AIR 1992 sc 604 -i 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 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 ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. an 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 othenfl/ise 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. (emphasis supplied) In the present case, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging that he is the owner of the land of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in 8. Sy.No.191/1 having purchased the same from one R.Sakuntala on 21.05.2004 and he has been in possession of the same. He got approval from TUDA on 22.10.2011. It is further alleged that, he constructed a shed and obtained 04.10.2014 the connection. While so, on electricity Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 along with rowdy elements, ploughed the service entire land with the help of JCB, demolished the shed and also threatened him with dire consequences. As such, he lodged the present complaint. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that, Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein filed O.S.No.133 of 2017 on the file of the 9. 6 Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, seeking permanent injunction with regard to the subject property. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, status-quo was ordered in the said suit. Respondent No.2 has not denied the same. In view of the order of status-quo passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati in O.S.No.133 of 2017, protecting the possession of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein over the subject property, the alleged criminal trespass by the Petitioners which is punishable under Section 447 IPC does not attract. In the absence of the ingredients under Section 447 IPC, the consequential offences under Sections 427 and 506 IPC also do not 10. attract against the Petitioners. The entire dispute revolves around the subject property and there involves the dispute of title and possession over the subject land. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and Respondent No.2 resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioners by inviting the Police to be interfered with the civil litigation. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others'* the Hon’ble 11. 12. Apex Court at Para No. 12 held as follows; “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends ofjustice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a ‘•(2013) ll see 673 7 criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. ” In view of the above discussion and the judgments referred to supra, even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 in Crime No.296 of 2014 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati, for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 13. 14. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Station House Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station, Chittoor District. One CC to Sri. Galla Sudarsana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] Three C.D Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. SSL sree I HIGH COURT \ i DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5257 of 2022 ANON^ 15 FEB 2025 \o ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION