APHC010446202021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6540/2021 Between: Garikina Venkata Ravindra Sai ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following order: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/ A2 in C.C.LG.No.08 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Special Court For Land Grabbing Cases, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 447 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) & SEC.4 & 5 of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant, who worked as Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural, filed a complaint dated 11.05.2017, on the file of P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner herein, alleging that the petitioner, along with four others, has conspired to grab land admeasuring Ac.0.70 cents situated in Sy.No.19 of Rushikonda Village, Visakhapatnam. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.248 of 2017, and the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.2. He submits that the sanction from the Tribunal ought to have been obtained before filing of the complaint. But, in the present case, the 2nd respondent without obtaining permission from the subject Tribunal, straight away proceeded to file complaint before the Police. He further submits that when the Sub-Registrar refused to register the General Power Attorney dated 03.12.2016, which is executed by the mother of the petitioner in his favour, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.6394 of 2017, before this Court challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents therein in not registering the documents submitted by the petitioner. This Court, after careful consideration, allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents therein to delete the subject land from the prohibitory list and register the document submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in the said writ petition and the land in the complaint alleged by the 2nd respondent are one and the same. Further, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner except the allegation that the A2 and A3 have arranged fencing around the subject land. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the learned Single Judge’s order in Crl.P.Nos.2199 and 2525 of 2012, dated 19.01.2015. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per the settlement Fair Adanagal, the subject lands are classified as “Gedda poromboke”. As such, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and others under land grabbing case. 4. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. When this Court in W.P.No.6394 of 2017, considered the land as “Gramakantam” land and represented that the same cannot be classified as Government land, the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent on 11.05.2017, ought not have been taken by the SHO, P.M. Palem Police Station. That apart, it is not in dispute that the judgment passed in W.P.No.6394 of 2017 has attained finality, as no writ appeal is filed questioning the said order by the State. The 2nd respondent/de-facto Complainant in the present case is 3rd respondent in the said writ petition. Having accepted the finding of this Court, the 2nd respondent ought to have brought to the notice of the SHO, P.M. Palem Police Station. 6. Taking the submission into consideration and the judgment of this Court passed in Crl.P.Nos.2199 and 2525 of 2012, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A2 in C.C.LG.No.8 of 2019, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Special Court For Land Grabbing Cases, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________ HARINATH.N,J Date: 29.03.2025 ANS 175 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6540/2021 Date: 29.03.2025 ANS