APHC010674972022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9973/2022 Between: 1. KANDULA SURESH, S/O PRAKASH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CASTE BY. KAPU, R/O PLOT NO. BF-3, SRI SAI NIVAS APARTMENTS, YENAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. DHANEKULA NAGENDRA BABU, , S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 40-3/1-44, K.V.RAO STREET, KRISHNA NAGAR, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G N V PULLA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.932 of 2019 on the file of the Court of 2 III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. 2. Heard Sri G.N.V.Pulla Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri B.Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri K.Nithin Krishna, 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 there are no specific allegations made against the Petitioner to attract the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that, in the mediators report, in the confession of Accused No.5, he clearly mentioned about the role of the Petitioner herein in the commission of the offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the matter requires full-fledged trial, since it is a scam within the Municipal Corporation in collusion with some of the employees by taking office copy of the TDR bonds and selling the same to different persons, though the original TDR bond is with the Complainant. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, it is not a fit case for quashment and prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made, a fair look at the contents of the complaint and the material placed on record, no doubt, the name of the Petitioner herein was not referred by the Complainant in the report. The Petitioner is not an employee of the Municipal Corporation and he is an 1 for short ‘IPC’ 3 outsider. It is alleged that, the Petitioner used to influence the staff of the Municipal Corporation, got copies of TDR bonds and prepared the duplicate bonds as if they are original bonds and used to sell them to other persons. In that view, when there is a verifiable material against the Petitioners, since conspiracy is alleged in this case, which is not visible at this stage, this Court is of the view that, it is not a fit case for quashment and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.02.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.9973 of 2022 Dt.24.02.2025 Dinesh