APHC010429692022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6457/2022 Between: 1. RAVURI MURALI KRISHNA, S/O.LATE VENKAT REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. CHODIMELLA, ELURU RURAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. RAVURI RAMA RAO @ RAMBABU, S/O.LATE VENKAT REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. HOMEGUARD, R/O. CHODIMELLA, ELURU RURAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. RAVURI SATYANARAYANA @ NAGENDRA, S/O.LATE VENKAT REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULURE, R/O. CHODIMELLA, ELURU RURAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY SUB. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELURU RURAL POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KUCHIPUDI SRINIVAS, S/O. GANDHI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI SOMESWARA DEVASTANAM, CHODIMELLA VILLAGE, ELURU RURAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.807 of 2021 on the 2 file of the Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trial of cases under A.P.Prohibition & Excise Act-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru for the offences under Sections 186, 447 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that in view of the disputes with regard to the subject property between the family of the Petitioners and the Endowments Department, the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel would further submit that having influenced by Respondent No.2, the Police referred the complaint lodged by the mother of the Petitioners as false and investigated the present crime and filed charge sheet against the Petitioners. It is submitted that, except bald and omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners to prima facie attract the alleged offences against them. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners in the above case. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the 1 for short ‘IPC’ 3 offences alleged against them. Therefore, this is not a fit case for quashment. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. 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 secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 6. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners, which was registered as a case in Crime No.353 of 2019 of Eluru Rural Police Station for the offences under Sections 447, 186 and 506 read with 34 IPC, alleging that, on 20.12.2019 from 10.00 a.m., till 8.45 p.m., while Respondent No.2 and his staff tried to take charge of the land belongs to Sivalayam, Petitioners caused obstruction to perform their legitimate duty, abused them in filthy language and also threatened them to file false cases against them with their women. The Police, after investigation, filed charge sheet in the present crime which was numbered as C.C.No.807 of 2021 before the trial Court. 7. It is the contention of the Petitioners that, with regard to the subject property, the father of the Petitioners filed O.S.No.118 of 2007 on the file of 4 the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru for declaration of the Order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowment Multizone-I, Kakinada as illegal and for consequential injunction restraining the Defendants therein from conducting auction for the lease hold rights and the said suit was dismissed. Against the same, the father of the Petitioners preferred A.S.No.43 of 2013 and the same was also dismissed. Against which, he preferred Second Appeal No.1480 of 2017 before this Court and obtained interim injunction and the said Appeal is pending. During pendency of the Second Appeal, Respondent No.2 and his staff with a view to evict the Petitioners, highhandedly demolished the properties and caused damage during night time without following due process of law. As such, the mother of the Petitioners lodged a complaint with the Police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.359 of 2019. 8. Admittedly, there are case and counter cases filed against each other. Further, there is a civil dispute pending before this Court in S.A.No.1480 of 2017 between the Endowments Department and the Petitioners herein with regard to the right and possession over the subject property. A bare perusal of the complaint would disclose that, when Respondent No.2 went to the subject land on 20.12.2019 and tried to take over the same, the alleged incident had taken place. It is the Complainant who went to the said land during the pendency of the civil dispute over the subject land. In view of the pendency of the civil dispute and the title over the subject property is not yet decided, the question of criminal trespass into the said land by the Petitioners 5 does not arise. In the absence of the ingredients under Section 447 IPC, the consequential offences under Sections 186 and 506 IPC also do not attract against the Petitioners. 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. 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. Hence, 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. 9. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.807 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trial of cases under A.P.Prohibition & Excise Act-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru for the offences under Sections 186, 447 and 506 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.02.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.6457 of 2022 Dt.06.02.2025 Dinesh