APHC010011742023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 217/2023 Between: D.thippe Nayak ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. BABUJI TENNETI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 284 of 2022 on the file of Kurnool II Town Police Station. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has filed a private complaint alleging issuance of a duplicate Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed on 02.11.2010 in favour of one P. Kasi Reddy. 2 2. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent is a journalist by profession and that he had noticed fabricated and fake documents which are alleged to have been created by the petitioner for personal gain. It is submitted that the petitioner is listed as Witness No. 8 in C.C. No. 525 of 2018, which is pending adjudication on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in C.C. No. 525 of 2018 also indicates that the petitioner was questioned with regard to the alleged issuance of a duplicate D-Form Patta in the name of one P. Kasi Reddy, an ex-serviceman. The present complaint is also filed by the 3rd respondent alleging that the duplicate patta was issued in favour of P. Kasi Reddy by playing fraud, and that a legal notice was also addressed to the RDO. The private complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, praying for referring the matter to the Kurnool II Town Police Station for registering a crime under Section 409 of the IPC. On receipt of the said complaint from the Court, the police have registered Crime No. 284 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Section 409 of the IPC. 3. It is submitted that, admittedly, the 3rd respondent was aware of the alleged duplicate patta issued in the year 2010 and filed a complaint vide Crime No. 148 of 2014, which is now taken on file as C.C. No. 525 of 2018. It is submitted that the petitioner could not have filed such a case, more so when the petitioner had only discharged his duty as a Tahsildar while working at Kurnool. 3 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the case is still under the investigation stage and the police are yet to complete investigation. It is submitted that the police ought to complete the investigation to ascertain the involvement of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the role of the petitioner in C.C. No. 525 of 2018 was to depose as the official witness and to depose with respect to the facts of fraudulent creation of Form-D Patta, D-Form Patta (duplicate), and fake Pattadar Passbook (Katta No. 581) and other entries in the revenue records. In C.C. No. 525 of 2018, one P. Kasi Reddy is also arraigned as Accused No. 1 apart from five others. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 6. The complaint filed by the petitioner alleging misrepresentation before the RDO and obtaining countersignature and issuance of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed bearing Katta No. 581 in favour of one P. Kasi Reddy reflects gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. The issuance of such Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed bearing Katta No. 581, and the alleged issuance of a duplicate Patta certificate in favour of one P. Kasi Reddy, is a matter already under consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The 3rd respondent has also not cited any valid reasons for filing a complaint alleging an offence under Section 409 of the IPC. 7. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent was having knowledge of the alleged fake D-Form Patta issued in favour of one P. Kasi Reddy in the year 2010. As 4 seen from the complaint, there is no restriction on the 3rd respondent from filing a complaint soon after he came to know about the alleged fraud committed by the petitioner while discharging his duty as MRO. Apart from the unexplained delay in filing the private complaint and getting it numbered for justification, the complaint also refers to C.C. No. 525 of 2018. Considering the charge sheet filed therein, the petitioner is listed as Witness No. 8 and has to depose before the Court with regard to the alleged D-Form Patta issued and the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed (Katta No. 581), which is also the subject matter before the Kurnool II Town Police Station in Crime No. 284 of 2022. The 3rd respondent cannot maintain the complaint simultaneously by arraying the petitioner as an accused in this case and, at the same time, relying upon the statement of the petitioner to prove his case in C.C. No. 525 of 2018. 8. On these grounds, this Criminal Petition is allowed, and Crime No.284 of 2022 on the file of Kurnool II Town Police Station is hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 26.03.2025 PNS 5