IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUAR^#=gS^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE QC \O PRESENT zy THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6706 OF 7077 Between: 1. B.Salman Raju @ Salmon Raju, S/o Prasad Babu years, Occ. Office Superintendent, O/o. DRM/O/GNT, R/o. 6/1-2, Santhi Nagar, lane, Valiurivarithota, Guntur, Guntur District. 73 years, Occ. 1st lane. Aged about 55 Door No.7- 2. B. Ratnamma,, W/o Late B, Prasad Babu, Aged about pensioner R/o. Door No.7-6/1-2, Valiurivarithota, Guntur, Guntur District. Santhi Nagar ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. 2. Nadhuvu Srinivasulu,, S/o.N. Manmadhudu, Aged about 53 business, R/o. Door No.30/729/A-B, Bommala Satram, Nandyai Town Nandyal District years, Occ. ...Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,1973 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court pleased to call for the records Petition in CC No.2746 of 2019 on 4k the file of the Additional Civil {jLfhior Division) Judge, Nandyal, Nandyal District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 -Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated praying that in the in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further CC No.2746 of 2019 proceedings in on the file of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Nandyal District. This Petition coming on for.hipanng,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and N Kiran Kumar ,Advocate for the Petitioner behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for No. 2. upon hearing the arguments of Sri P V and the Public Prosecutor the Respondent on The Court made the following: 'i • 1 APHC010447632022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6706 OF 2022 Between: B.Salman Raju @ Salmon Raju and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.PVN KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- The instant Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is filed on behalf of the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.2746 of 2019 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal and quash the same. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner/ Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 354 read with 34 I.P.C. 2 ‘ 3- Sri P.V.N.KIran learned Assistant Public on respondent No.2, but Kumar, learned Prosecutor for the none appeared. counsel for the petitioners respondent/ State. Notice and served 4. Learned have got nothing to of the subject ■' "-nap... 8,00,000/-. It is further submitted that purchase the on 23.06.2011 next day. counsel for the petitioners do with the would submit that the petitioners present crime. The petitioners are the owners property. It is aileged that the petitioner No.1, who i's son of 0-10 cents of land consideration of Rs. the respondent No.2 having agreed to property has paid an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/ - to Accused No.1 and Accused No.1 has executed an agreement of sale on the 5- Learned counsel would further a crime has been lodged respondent No.2 for the submit that earlier vide Crime No. the self styled 163 of 2018 under Sections Charge allegations, the complaint of 420, 307, 356 Sheet before the trial on offence punishable investigation, Police filed read with 34 of IPC. After due i court and same is pending. 6. Learned counsei wouid further submit that the respondent No.2 made the same set of allegations in the present complaint also, instead of filing ,he suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. As an arm twisting to grab to bend upon the the property, this false case has been lodged accused to k' 3 their terms regarding the alleged agreement of sale. The respondent No.2 also filed a suit in O.S.No. 739 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal seeking specific performance of agreement of sale. The present case has been lodged alleging that Accused 1 and 2 with some other persons came to the house of respondent No.2. Accused No.1 has shown the knife and tried to kill the mother of respondent No.2 and beat her with chappal. It is further submitted that the Police did not choose to register the crime. Hence, he filed a private complaint, which is referred by the Court to the Police for registration of crime and investigation. Learned counsel would submit that the Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 354 read with 34 IPC in the matter. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State brought to the notice of this Court that earlier cases i.e Crime No. 163 of 2017, which is lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 417, 442, 354, 307 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was referred as ‘False’ by the Police. Nothing has been placed before this Court, after referring the case as false as to any protest petition filed by the complainant and the orders passed by the Court. 8. Be that as it may, coming to the facts of the present case, the contention of the complainant that on 11.11.2017 he called Accused No.1 over a phone and demanded him to execute a registered sale deed. Upon which. on the very next day i.e on 12.11.2017 at about 6.30 p.m, while the complainant along with his mother were in their house. Accused 1 and 2 4 , attacked the mother of the complainant with throat and threatened to kill her. The mother. In that process, complainant fell with chappal. The contention of the choose to register the 12.11.2017, then he filed knife putting the same over her I rescued his down, Accused No.2 slapped him complainant is that the Police did case, though he approached the Police immediately on a private complaint before the Court on 22.03.2018 complainant intervened and not 9. It is needless to and fast rule that the complainant who details in the F.I.R. The fact to the authorities immediately after the i considerable period of time, the Court report. A cursory look at the private compiaint before No.2 in this say that F.I.R is not be all and all. There i - IS no hard mentioned everything with all manual remains that when such report was not presented incident, but report was given after can expect all manual details in the said the court, the respondent some other persons have case would show that the accused and trespassed in the house with deadly weapons and threatened the mother of consequences by putting the knife complainant with dire abused her in filthy language, i and other unknown him with knife and sticks. The No.2 slapped him with her chappals. The No.2 slapped him with her chappals. came and rescued the accused, who on her threat and immediately, he rescued his mother. Accused persons attacked the complainant with an intention to kill complainant had fall in surface, then On hearing the cries, the Accused neighbours ran away from the house. 10. The gist of the complaint would mother have been threatened by the against them. This Court i show that the complainant and her accused and to make IS not inclined to say that simply because any complairits a dispute 5 which is in civil nature is pending between the parties, question of committing any offence does not arise. At the same time, a careful scrutiny of the material placed on record would show that how the complainant exaggerated his version in the statement before the Police. Admittedly, no Wound Certificate has been filed. No doctor was cited as a witness. That apart Charge Sheet is filed for the offence under Sections 420, 354 read with 34 I PC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 11. Even as per the contents of the complaint, the agreement of sale executed by Accused No.1 in the presence of Accused No.2 in favour of respondent No.2 is of the year 2011. No civil suit has been filed seeking specific performance of alleged agreement of sale till lodging of present case against the petitioners. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the present private complaint filed before the Court does not reveal anything about the earlier case lodged against the petitioners by making very same allegations, which is the subject matter of Crime No. 163 of 2017, which was referred by the Police as ‘false’ as represented by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Inspector of Police in Crime No. 163 of 2017 submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer dated 30.07.2017 that the said case is a false in nature. The present case has been lodged referring to the incident said to have been taken place on 12.11.2017, which was filed by way of private complaint on 22.03.2018. I I 6 13. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent No.2 after lodging these two cases against the petitioners, ultimately, filed a suit for specific performance vide O.S.No.739 of 2021 against Accused 1 and 2, which is pending before the competent civil court for consideration. In the absence of a scrap of injury and no iota of medical evidence to support the contention of the complainant that he and his mother were attacked by Accused No.1 and 2 and some unknown persons would strengthen the contention of the complainant that with ulterior motive as an arm twist to bend Accused No.1 to their terms, the present case has been lodged. 14. In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. This Court makes it clear that the Court has not touched anything relating to the agreement of sale between the parties. It is left open to the competent Civil Court, where O.S.No. 739 of 2021 is pending to take appropriate decision over the subject matter. 15. In the result. Criminal Petition is allowed and C.C.No.2746 of 2019 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal is hereby quashed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. ^ Di^rict**^'*'°^^' Division) Judge, Nandyal Town, Nandyai 2. The Station House Officer, Bprnmalasatram, Nandyal Town Nandyal District. 3. One CC to Sri P V N Kiran Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies PR TF ■] HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6706 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRLP