APHC010430412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6455 of 2022 Between: Karlapudi Hari Prasad and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed, by the Petitioners/A.1 to A.3 seeking to quash the Proceedings against them in CC No.589 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur. 2. Heard Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. Despite service of notice, none represented for respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners/A.1 to A.3 purchased the subject property situated at Molakalapundla village Panchayat of Sydapuram Mandal from one of the Director of Respondent No.2/Company for a valid consideration vide joint registered sale deeds in the 2 year 2013. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.2 filed OS No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, seeking declaration of title and that the alleged resolution dated 24.12.2013 for selling the subject property as null and void and claimed for recovery of possession of the subject property. It is stated that Petitioner No.3/A.3 is one of the Directors of respondent No.2/Company. Further, on the allegation that on 26.08.2016 Petitioners trespassed into the subject lands along with the tractors and ploughed the lands mischievously to get wrongful gain by violating the status quo order of the civil Court which is in force, respondent No.2 the present criminal case was filed. Further, when the complainant himself filed the civil suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the subject lands, the question of accused trespassed into the subject lands do not arise. Learned counsel would submit that the suit in OS No.3 of 2014 was partly decreed. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners as well as respondent No.2 preferred separate appeals before this Court and the said appeals are pending for consideration. Learned counsel would finally submit that when the dispute is pending before the competent Civil Court in the shape of a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession, lodging the present criminal case is only as an arm-twist to settle the score in the civil suit. Learned counsel prays for quashment of the case against the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Police after due investigation filed Charge Sheet and the Trial Court took cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 188 3 read with 34 IPC and that there are no grounds for quashment of the case. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 5. Considering the averments and on a perusal of the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners when a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession regarding the subject property is pending for consideration before the competent Civil Court, the present crime has been lodged. It is stated that Petitioner No.3/A.3 is the owner of the Tractor. Admittedly, A.1 and A.2 were in possession of the subject lands. Respondent No.2 filed a Civil Suit for recovery and possession of the subject land. It is not the case that the Petitioners that they criminally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 with an intention to commit any offence. Claim of possession by A.1 and A.2 over the subject property is by virtue of registered sale deeds. In these circumstances, in the absence of any prima facie material to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences is nothing but mere abuse of process of law. 6. For the aforesaid premises, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Proceedings in CC No.589 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, against the Petitioners are hereby quashed. It is made clear that this Court did not express any opinion touching the merit of the case regarding the title and possession over the subject property. It is left open to the Civil Court to decide those issues according to law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No. 6455 of 2022 03.02.2025 Mjl /*