1 APHC010581762022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8525/2022 Between: Punuri Samuel Raja Sekhar and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8525/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 5, 3 & 6 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.932 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Ms. Pulipati Vandana, learned counsel representing Sri Pulipati Radhika, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Nithin Krishna, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are A-5, A-3 and A-6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made against the petitioners are false, they are invented only to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the statements of all witnesses which were recorded by the Police during the course of investigation would show that there is no involvement of the petitioners in the case. Learned counsel would further submit that regarding A-6, no iota of evidence is available to continue criminal proceedings against him. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no allegations whatsoever to the effect that the petitioners herein induced the complainant and such inducing since from the inception is not present in this matter. The 3 entire allegations made against the petitioners would not attract either the ingredients of cheating or the offence of forgery. Learned counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the statements of LWs-6 & 7 are clear to speak about the role played by A3 and A5 in the crime. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 herein has lost 93 sq.yards of site during widening of road in master plan of the Municipality. In that regard, Municipal Commissioner issued TDR bond dated 29.06.2015. Learned counsel would further submit that while the original bond is lying with the respondent No.2, one Sri Jayanthi Subramanyam approached him and enquired about selling of TDR bond to one Sri Pachigolla Edward Singh Samuel. When he inquired in the Municipal Corporation, he was informed that on 18.12.2015, the bond was sold to Sri Edward Singh Samuel and on 02.04.2016, the bond was sold to Sri Mamillapalli Venkata Rao (A1 and A2 respectively). Learned counsel would further submit that though the original bond is lying with the complainant, A1 and A2 by forging the signatures of the complainant entered sale transaction as if the complainant sold away his TDR Bond. Learned counsel finally would submit that no incriminating material is placed against A-6, Court may pass appropriate orders regarding A-6. Coming to the case of A-5 and A-3, there is ample material to show their role in this case. Accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition regarding A-5 and A-3. 4 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the respondent No.2. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, LWs-6 & 7, during the course of investigation stated before the Police regarding the role played by the A-3 and A-5. This is not the stage to decide the truth or otherwise of such statements made before the Police by the witnesses. On a cursory look at the contents of the complaint, there are specific allegations made against A-3 and A-5. When prima facie material is there to attract the offence alleged, the case cannot be quashed against the petitioners. Such being the case, when verifiable material is present in the matter, it is not a fit case for quashment for A-3 and A-5. Coming to the case of A-6, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly conceded that nothing is found against him. 7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed for Accused No. 6 and dismissed for Accused Nos. 3 and 5. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.02.2025 UPS 5 142 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.8525 of 2022 Dt.20.02.2025 UPS