IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3143 OF 2022 Between: V. Subba Reddy, S/o late V, Kpnda Reddy, 59y, Advocate, H.No. 7/477-40, NGO Colony, Kadapa City, YSR District. ‘i, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED V r AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi. } i ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. Vutukuri Krishnaveni, W/o late Pala Konda Reddy, 36y, H.No. 9-716, Chilakalabavi Street, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section '482: of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Me.fTijQr^ndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 872/2019 on the file of the I Additional Judicral First Class Magistrate at Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. \ r' '* k LA. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the ^ circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in CC.No. 872/2019 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District pending disposal of the above CrI.P. in the interest of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of Jhe Respondent No.1 and of Ms. PRIYANKA. S, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, -’-i The Court made the following ORDER 'A* APHC010194392022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3396] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3143/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED V. Subba Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PRIYANKA SONKAMBLE 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/accused seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.872 of 2019, on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. 2 2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.S.Priyanka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioner that would attract offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, much less Section 448 IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is relating to collection of rents. The 2"^^ respondent is not residing in the said house, which is unpartitioned between the both parties. A partition suit has been filed by the mother of the petitioner in O.S. No. 151 of 2018, wherein respondent No.2 was defendant No.3. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner also filed O.S.No.826 of 2019 seeking a permanent injunction against respondent No.2, which is pending. Learned counsel would finally submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is merely an abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders on merits. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this is a case under Sections 354, 448 and 506 IPC. Though it is alleged that the petitioner trespassed into the house that belongs to the family and against which a partition suit is pending, the complaint is 3 clear and would attract the offences under Sections 354, 448 and 506 IPC. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this is not a fit case for quashment. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the 6. material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, even though the house belongs to the joint family, and a partition suit has been filed by the mother-in-law of nd respondent No.2, a cursory look at the complaint filed by 2 respondent would show that there are clear allegations attributed against the petitioner constituting offences under Sec.s 354, 506 and 448 IPC. The police after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and the Learned Magistrate also took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Linder these circumstances, there is verifiable material against the petitioner and a full-length trial is warranted. In that view, the petition deserves dismissal. 7. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. % 2. One CC to SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. PRIYANKA S, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies gsg -> HIGH COURT DATED: 23/01/2025 \ \ ORDER CRLP.No.3143 of 2022 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION