APHC010666032022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9771/2022 Between: 1. KINJOLATA UMA MAHESWARA, S/O.K.CHANDRA SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CHIEF MANAGER, RACC, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT. 2. DUDDIGA GOPI SAGAR, S/O. D. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, JAGGAIAHPET, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER JAGGAIAHPET POLICE STATION NTR COMMISSIONARATE, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DEVERAPALLY JOHN PAUL, S/O.GANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.MUKYALA ROAD, JAGGAIAHPET, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. J.V.PHANIDUTH The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.335 of 2022 of Jaggaiahpeta Police Station, N.T.R District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 2 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri J.V.Phaniduth, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the Chief Manager and Branch Manager of the Bank. Learned counsel would further submit that a private complaint has been filed by Respondent No.2 before the learned Magistrate and the same was referred to the Police for registration of FIR and investigation. Learned counsel would submit that, Respondent No.2 obtained loan by mortgaging the subject property to the Bank and thereafter failed to discharge the loan amount. As such, Petitioners as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act conducted auction, sold the property and sale certificate was also issued. It is alleged against the Petitioners that they have sold away the land illegally. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners having nothing to do with the alleged offences. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate cannot entertain a private complaint regarding the offence under SCST Act. Learned counsel would submit that, Respondent No.2 ought to have filed the private complaint before the Special Court for trial of the offences under SCST Act, but not before the Magistrate’s Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the property which was mortgaged by Respondent No.2 was sold in an auction. Learned counsel would finally 3 submit that, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that, after mortgaging the subject property to the Bank, Respondent No.2 had purchased 2 ½ square yards of site towards the eastern boundary. Now, Respondent No.2 is denied to enter to his site. Learned counsel would further submit that the auction purchaser, who had purchased the property, which was mortgaged by Respondent No.2 is not permitting Respondent No.2 to enter his 2 ½ square yards of site towards eastern boundary. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents of the complaint and the other material placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that Respondent No.2 availed loan from the Bank by mortgaging his property. It is also a fact that, Respondent No.2 failed to discharge the loan. Petitioners, being Bank Officials, have initiated the proceedings under SARFAESI Act and got conducted auction and sold away the property to third parties. 6. As can be seen from the mortgage deed, the boundary owner on the eastern side of the subject property is one T.Savitramma. The sale Deed in favour of the third party, who is the auction purchaser also would reveal the eastern boundary owner as T.Savitramma. Such being the case, even if Respondent No.2 purchased 2 ½ square yards of site of T.Savitramma towards the eastern boundary and his entry to the said land is denied, he is at liberty to work out his remedies before a competent Civil Court. As per the 4 contents of the complaint, this is not an offence committed against Respondent No.2 on the basis of the caste. As such, the offence under Section 3(1) (r)(s) of SCST Act is not sustainable against the Petitioners. That apart, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to refer the complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, since the power is vested with the Special Court to entertain a private complaint. Viewed from any angle, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of law. As such, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.335 of 2022 of Jaggaiahpeta Police Station, N.T.R District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 378 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.01.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.9771 of 2022 Dt.28.01.2025 Dinesh