s APHC010353292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5317 OF 2023 Between: 1. Annapureddy Rami Reddy, Son of Veera Nagi reddy. Aged about 58 years, R/o Flat No.304, Yaganti Nice apartment, 3/6 Vidya Nagar, Guntur city Presently residing at Flat NO.502, Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Residency, JKC College road. Near Vikas Inn, Guntur. 2. Chinni Srinivasa Rao, son of Chandra Sekhar Rao, Aged 48 years. Manager in Cipla Company, R/o Moghalrajapuram 0pp. Late to Pushpa Hotel Macherla. 3. Annapureddy Anitha Reddy, wife of Rami Reddy, Aged about 50 years, R/o Flat No.304, Yaganti Nice apartment, 3/6 Vidya Nagar, Guntur city. Presently residing at Flat NO.502, Sri Lakshmi Residency, JKC College road, Near Vikas Inn, Guntur. 4. Chinni Rama Rao, son of Chandra Sekhar, aged about 44 years, R/o D.No.3-29-39/3, Kundula Road, 7th lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur. 5. Manyam Srinivasa Rao, son of Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 44 years, R/o D.No.8-2-78, 2nd lane, Butchaiah thota, Guntur. 6. Thulluru Gayathri, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 42 about years, R/o D.No.3-29-39/3, Kundula Road, 7th lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur. ...Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 6 Chennakesava 7' / AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Through S.H.O., Kothapet P.S., Guntur District. 2. Gajavalli Kishore, Son of Narayana Rao, Aged about 55 years, R/o Nagi reddy Bazar, Ramatalkies lane, Guntur District. (Defacto Complainant) Macherla, D.No.11-1-299 ...Respondents/Complainant 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 be pleased to QUASH C.C. No. 1120 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional may Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in Cr.No.587 of 2014 of Kothapet P.S. Guntur against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 468, 471, 120(b), 420r/w34IPC. I lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 C.C. No.1120 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in Cr.No.587 of 2014 of Kothapet P.S. Guntur against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 468, 471, 120(b), 420 r/w 34 IPC including the dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/accused in the court. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.V.Vijaya Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri The Court made the following order: APHC010353292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ' AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5317/2023 r Between: 1.ANNAPUREDDY RAMI REDDY, SON OF VEERA NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO.304, YAGANTI NICE APARTMENT, 3/6 VIDYA NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.502, SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVA RESIDENCY, JKC COLLEGE ROAD, NEAR VIKAS INN, GUNTUR. 2.CHINNI SRINIVASA RAO,, SON OF CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, MANAGER IN CIPLA COMPANY, R/0 MOGHAL RAJA PURAM OPP. LATE TO PUSHPA HOTEL MACHERLA. 3.ANNAPUREDDY ANITHA REDDY,, WIFE OF RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO.304, YAGANTI NICE APARTMENT, 3/6 VIDYA NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.502, SRI LAKSHMI CHENNAKESAVA RESIDENCY, JKC COLLEGE ROAD, NEAR VIKAS INN, GUNTUR. 4.CHINNI RAMA RAO,, SON OF CHANDRA SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.3-29-39/3, KUNDULA ROAD, 7TH LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, c 5.MANYAM SRINIVASA RAO,, SON OF VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.8-2-78, 2ND LANE, BUTCHAIAH THOTA, GUNTUR. 6.THULLURU GAYATHRI,, WIFE OF SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 42 ABOUT YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-29-39/3, KUNDULA ROAD, 7TH LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR. II2II CRLP.No.5317 of 2023 ...PETIT10NER/ACCUSED{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THROUGH S.H.O., KOTHAPET P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.GAJAVALLI KISHORE, SON OF NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.11-1-299, NAGI REDDY BAZAR, RAMATALKIES LANE, MACHERLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): a Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to QUASH C.C. No.1120/2020 on the file of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in Cr.No.587/2014 of Kothapet P.S. Guntur against the Petitioners for the offences punishable u/sec.468, 471, 120(b), 420’r/w 34 IPC and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No.1120/2020 on the file of IV Addl. Junior OW Judge, Guntur in Cr.No.587/2014 of Kothapet P.S. Guntur against the Petitioners for the offences punishable u/sec. 468, 471, 120(b), 420 r/w 34 IPC including the dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/accused in the court in the interests of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.KVVIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: / / / . CRLP,No.5317of2023 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.5317 of 2023 ORDER: 1. The petitionerb are seeking quash of CC.No.1120 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The petitioners are facing trial for the alleged offences under Section 468, 471, 120-B, 420 read with 34 of I PC. f 2. The 2"^ respondent had filed a private complaint praying to refer the complaint to the police for investigation. The police had registered Crime No.587 of 2014 and filed a final report by referring the same as civil in nature on 07.11.2017. 3. The 2"^ respondent thereafter filed a protest petition aggrieved by the final report. The learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge had after considering the protest petition and after recording the t sworn statements of the 2'^'^ respondent and other witnesses from the complainant’s side has found a prima facie case and r issued summons to all the accused. 4. This Court vide order dated 27.07.2023 to dispense with the presence of petitioners 2 to 6 except for those dates on which their presence is required for the purpose of trial. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2"'^ respondent had alleged in the complaint that a nominal binami r HAH CRLP.No.5317 of 2023 transaction was executed on 19.12.2013. It is stated in the complaint that the accused have got registered the property of the complainant in favour of accused Nos.2 and 4 without transfer of any sale consideration. It is also stated that the accused having acquaintance with the complainant, approached the complainant under the guise of helping the complainant in obtaining loans from Magma Fin.Corp.-Limited. On the contrary the accused got executed various documents without revealing the purpose of execution and got registered the immovable property in favour of accused Nos.2 and 4. Though, the binami sale deed would reflect the alleged sale consideration as Rs.30,75,000/- no such amount was received by the complainant. It is also stated in the complaint that the complainant after coming to know about the fraudulent deed on 11.09.2014 approached the accused, the accused assaulted the complainant and his wife, in this regat'd, they filed a complaint before the police and as the police did not envince any interest for registering the complaint, the complainant filed a private complaint. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that there is no truth in the allegations and that the 2^^^ respondent is due to several people and that the 2"'^ respondent was also J CRLP.No,5317of2023 convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Nl Act. It is also submitted that the 2'^^ respondent had defaulted in repayment and several suits were filed and some of the suits were settled before the Lok Adalat. ! 7. It is further submitted that there are no specific dates of the alleged assault and vague allegations are made. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the complaint solely basing on the sworn statements. The learned Magistrate did not consider the final report filed by the police and evidently the dispute was civil in nature. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2"^^ respondent submits that the petitioners under the guise of helping out the 2'^'^ respondent frorp the financial difficulties got executed several f blank promissory notes and cheques and that they were misused against the 2"^^ respondent. 9. It is also submitted that the petitioners have fraudulently got executed a sale deed in favour of accused Nos.2 and 4 without transfer of the sale consideration. It is submitted that the 2"'^ respondent and his wife were called to the office of the Sub- Registrar to execute documents for the purpose of loan. However, the intention of the petitioners was to defraud the 2'^'^ respondent of his property. r CRLP.No.5317 of 2023 10. It is submitted that there are eye witnesses for the incident and that the witnesses- who speak about the fraud played by the petitioners would have to depose before the trial Court. It is submitted that the complainant would be able to establish his case by adducing the evidence of the witnesses who have knowledge of the facts in issue and as such prays for dismissing the petition. i 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the state and the learned counsel for the 2^^ respondent; Perused the material on record. 12. Evidently, the issue relates to the year 2013-2014 and a complaint was filed before the police which was initially not entertained. However, on receipt of the complaint forwarded by the Court, FIR was registered, which was subsequently closed as civil in nature on 07.11.2017. The investigating officer has closed the case as civil in nature and also that there was dispute with regard to sharing of profits in the business between the complainant and accused. J 13. The learned Magistrate has considered the sworn statements recorded on behalf of complainant and witnesses on behalf of the complainant and expressed satisfaction of prima facie case r mu CRLP.No.5317 of 2023 summons. The order taking cognizance is passed in a detailed and well considered 14. In complaints of this against the accused and issued manner. nature, the issues would have to be relegated to the trial Court for conducting a trial. The evidence adduced by the witnesses on behalf of the complainant would have to undergo the scrutiny of cross-examination. The evidence ought to withstand the cross-examination for establishing and proving the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. As such,? exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction for this is not a case for quashing the case. 15. This Court after considering the material on record deems it it open for raise all grounds as raised in the quash petition before the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial. appropriate to dispose off the criminal petition, leaving the petitioners to 16. With the above observation, the criminal petition is disposed off. As a seque[,jnjscellaneous petitions -P®MQgJLany^ shall stand 1 closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANTREGI^RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 2 ITST' '^-'-.Guntur District. 3.' One CC I sr K •Vijaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two GO’S to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 22/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 5317 OF 2023 13 AU6 2025 I© DISPOSING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION