APHC010500932017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN W.P.Nos.8313 & 8859 of 2017 WRIT PETITION NO: 8313/2017 Between: Kattamuri Surya Lakshmi Durga, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Its Pri Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 8859/2017 Between: Yakkala Gayathri Naga Lakshmi Kumari, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MD GHOUSE PASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2 The Court made the following Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in both cases. 2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions sought for quashing of the FIR No.40 of 2017 dated 19.02.2017 before the Vinukonda PS, Guntur District. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed a private complaint before the Junior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District alleging the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 of IPC. The petitioners were shown as A1 to A3 and A4 is the tenant of one of the shops in the subject property. Hence, he was also shown as an accused in the said complaint. The said tenant filed a suit against the petitioners before the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet which is pending. The above said complaint given by the unofficial respondents was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was registered in Cr.No.40 of 2017 dated 19.02.2017 for the above said offences. (a) According to the complainants, late Yekkala Ram Mohan Rao and his elder son Mr. Chenchu Venkata Kasi Badri Narayana conducted business in the name and style of Kanaka Durga Traders and Yakkala Rammohana Rao & Sons. The said Chenchu Venkata Kasi Badri Narayana died on 31.12.2014. He borrowed huge amounts to a tune of Rs.2.70 crores 3 which came to light after his death. The debts are more than the value of the property bearing D.No.26-75, 78 and 78/1. The said property was purchased by the deceased Yekkala Rama Mohan Rao during his lifetime under the registered sale deed in the year 1981. (b) According to the complainants the consent deed of agreement dated 02.03.2016 was drafted and signed by the accused/ the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners instigated the tenants and some of the creditors to file suits to stall the further action in terms of the agreement. The petitioners in W.P.No.8313 of 2017 also filed O.S.No.6 of 2017 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and to allot 1/6th share to her as she is the daughter of late Yakkala Rama Mohan Rao. Pending the suit an injunction order was also granted in favour of the petitioners which is subsisting. In the said suit, the complainants/ unofficial respondents and the list of witnesses are the parties. Only to harass the petitioners, the unofficial respondents filed the above said complaint which is in the nature of civil dispute. Apart from the above suit, the unofficial respondents also filed the suit in O.S.Nos.16/2017, 7/2017 and 205/2016. Similarly, O.S.Nos.167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 of 2016 were filed by the LW.2 and his wife. LW.3 filed O.S.No.178 of 2016. LW.4 and his wife filed O.S.Nos.207 of 2015 and 29 of 2017. LW.5 also filed O.S.No.180 of 2016. All these suits are pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. In all these suits, the 4 properties were also attached. While so, the continuation of the criminal proceedings under the private complaint is not permissible under law. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the 2nd respondent and upon receipt of the written instructions submits that, as the case was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate pursuant to the private complaint filed by the unofficial respondents, the above said crime was registered for the said offence of 420 and 406 IPC R/w 120-B IPC. Investigation was taken up by the police and about 9 witnesses were examined. At that stage, as there was an interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court, further investigation could not be taken up. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, as there are number of suits pending between the parties and the dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents is primarily in the nature of recovery of money, the parties can avail the remedies under law towards enforcement of their civil rights and as the crime was registered on account of reference by the learned Magistrate in a private complaint, the 2nd respondent shall conclude the investigation quickly and he shall not interfere and proceed further if it is found to be a civil dispute. Once the Investigating Officer comes to a conclusion that the dispute between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents is purely civil in nature, accordingly, the above said crime shall be closed in accordance with law, as the police are not 5 supposed to interfere in the civil dispute. However, it does not preclude for the police to take cognizance of any offence when the above said parties resort for violence and breach of public peace and tranquility if any. 6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 06.02.2025 NNN