7 - I }■ r APHC010434362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI i it- THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIxtH DAY OF JUNE^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRUUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No 6465 nf 70?:^ s Between: Battu Anil Kumar, S/o Sa(i,l^af,;Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o. D.No. 2- 22, Pavuluru Village, Inkolluf Ptikasam District. Petitioner/Accused No.6 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, efp by its Public Prosecutor, The High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. '' ' 2. Vemuri Kondaiah, S/o. Subbaiah, Aged about 48 years, R/o. D.No. 5- 82, Venkateswara Nagar, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. t • Respondents ‘I Petition under Section 482 Vbr.P.C praying that in the circumstaribes stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimihal Petition ) the High Court may be pleased to Quash the C.C No. 15 of 2 on the file oh Hon'ble III ■Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasarn Distfict. ■ V (CC No.15 of 2017 Is amended in place of CC No.295 of 2016 as per the Court Order dated 10:il2023 in I.A.N0.3 bf 2023 in CRLP No.6465 of 2023) '■? ,• Er’- %• f V -V r :■ - 'vi .■;■ r- :■ ■ i' 'v': ■ v‘' ,' V • v-'- ■:■ ■; •■; i ', .V'.^ '•c- -r' -y ';- ? ■; lA NO: 1 OF 2023 ■■ a V ' •■{• :C‘ --f- \f‘- ,; vif I ^Petition under Section 482 of CrP^C pra^rig thft ln the^circMrnste e Memorandum of Ground^ of Criminaf Petitionythe' Hig^ asdd to Stay all further^pfoceedings including appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No. 6 in C.C. 'No. 15 of 2017 y X I ..^4 ■e'.- on the fild of j Mon'ble; | ll X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class/ Ongole pending disposal of th Criminal Petition. j • -c. 'Vi.y' Counsel for the Petitioner Sri VenRateshKosafaju^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor : y.-r- Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Yadavalli Ramesh The Court made the follbwiri^* ' X: Sroiifi ■ hmmo \ ■ • , „ •; y. . ■ • • ' ■ L- -.r-; ■ , I ; yy.'' i..'' ic; V *1 .y fyy : yy.;-VS . I ivy/V V yyy ■ ■■■y--y -x/;' ;y U>: •■SX'V'''y-1 i iX; '■y>. ■V ^ i.. ) ■ ■■? • 'V • .-.yyV-y f ' rX • ^ .'-.'y .'y.' .. /:/ ^''<■ ' :y[. <■ ■=' yy,-' yyyy •• y: •U-i i C V' ,;-r; V,::, ■j-: : ■; ’ ; { I ■' t . -^-• ■f ytr’V' ■■ ■ V >? -y\- v-^ v-'- ■■:, •■vr ■yyy'yy ''/..y.y ; i: ■ yy. '■y •:y ''.'v y ;y;: y' ; ; y ;.•■ -I ■ ■ ., T, 'i ay v ••i-'. •I' y ; ■; /'■ -y •; ly ;/..'. i ■V V- ;t; ■yy" ■)• :■ ' .. i- Ay A y s' / i :-v y V •V'y; •;. .•a''--' -' y. ..AAALiryfA r' a' y: A'-; : j ■f L:u:yA.,.pfo •A w"-' : y V -•--i A'y.y (a ■ .y-A-' ay;:- ' /A,yyaA,y.. A.: ■:AA'.y,Aa.l?AAAy;A ■'lAy aaX I: ■ • A ■A1 ii; •■a.:;...' a A Av, y ■^Wlalr ^.■; A i- --v‘ Afy 5 /a '■ :> : ■•; y.- Ay ■ y': y ayaA. A -' ^ .r.y " :‘A w;-. : ayy y A , • A^ .- •i ; A y ,. ■•*. A' A -iA; .A y > ;• 'i ■ ; W: • " • '.A --. •• ' • Y> A fa a vX •y /.’A /'A ■Y .•A, vy a- ■'i; a. 'a' r -.c •.. ■■•.' ' -J ... --v - :«;.'5 V- •si -v." , -I ■ ft ■y ; : A-Y . - .:V-a-Y: .^a . • ; '•• / ' .■; Y 'a';. : ':' >■ - '-'•aY '.'a T a, ' 1 •/ 'iJ 1- I 5- ,- ' -i-- ‘/X; AW. A A A-a: .y .-■‘‘'A a-' ‘V. .'■> l i ■') APHC010434362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6465/2023 Between: Battu Anil Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VENKATESH KOSARAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. YADAVALLI RAMESH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 p The Court made the following Order: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.15 of 2017 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, for alleged offences under Sections 206, 207, 208, 420 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6 for having attested his signature as a witness to a deed of mortgage between the accused and the 2"'^ accused. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of the purport of the deed of mortgage executed between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and at request of accused No.2, who belongs to the same village, acted as a witness to the said transaction. It is submitted that the 2"^ respondent has filed a private complaint before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, which was taken on file as C.C.No.295 of 2016 by the learned Magistrate for the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even as seen from the complaint, except for a vague statement that the accused Nos.6 and 7 are attestors of the mortgage deed and that they were close acquaintances of accused Nos.1 and 2 at the deed of mortgage is a sham transaction, purportedly executed without any consideration. It is also submitted all the accused have cleverly created the sale deed and mortgage deed only to avoid the execution of decree passed in O.S.No.13 of 2016 filed for recovery of money and it was decreed for an amount of Rs.6,45,000/- with interest. 3. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the attestor of a document could not have been arrayed as accused, and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar in Crl.A.No.1695 of 2009, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the 2"^ accused, and acts of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 by signing as witness, scribe and stamp vendor of the sale deeds cannot be held responsible for offence of cheating. Learned counsel appearing for the 2'^^ respondent submits that 5. the 2 respondent has ample evidence to prove the connivance between the accused. It is also submitted that the issue would have to be dealt by the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial. It is further submitted that evidence would be adduced before the trial Court, and the nexus between the accused and their acquaintance would be established by the 2'^'^ respondent during the course of trial and prays for dismissing the petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the 2"^ respondent. Perused the record. As seen from the disputed deed of mortgage dated 27.01.2016, 7. the transaction amount of Rs.20,13,000/- is said to be exchanged between the parties to the deed through the savings bank account of the executants vide a cheque. The 2"^^ respondent has not placed any document or record to disbelieve this transaction. As seen from the recitals of the complaint, it is not even alleged that the transaction alleged is a sham transaction and that the , I 4 I - cheque was never deposited or the cheque was returned or dishonoured, no effort in that regard is made by the 2^^^^ respondent before filing the complaint against the petitioner. That apart, the private complaint filed by the petitioner does not disclose the list of witness in Annexure-I, as such the petitioner would not have the liberty to summon any witness of his choice, when the matter is taken up for trial. That apart, fastening the liability under Sections 206, 207, 208, 420 read with 34 of IPC cannot be attributed to the petitioner for his role as a witness to the deed of mortgage. The petitioner also cannot be held responsible for the transaction between the accused Nos.1 and 2, as the 2"'^ accused is the beneficiary of the document and any grievance with the petitioner would have to be redressed against the 2^^^ accused. The subject property was also under attachment in the suit filed for recovery of money. In such circumstances, nothing would compel the accused to enter into a deed of mortgage with the 2"'^ respondent. On these grounds, the proceedings in C.C.No.15 of 2017 in III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand Sd/-G HELA NAIDU j ASSISTAN'^GISTRAR ; ^ECT^ OFFICER i Judicial Magistrate of First Class.'Ongole, Prakasam ; Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 8. 9. 10. closed. //TRUECOPY// To 1. The 111 Additional District. 2. TwoCCstothe Amaravathi[OUTl 3. One CC to Sri Venkatesh Kosaraju, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri YadaValli Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies W- HIGH COURT DATED; 26/06/2025 ORDER CRLP No.6465 of 2023 3tJUL 2025 'S rent ★ i Jf Pi 1