IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAt/^^^^Y^ > TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ 'v.^ V3 Of So3 PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 10252.10275 and 10277 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10252 of 2022: Between: 1. G.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Jayarami Reddy, Aged about 56 Years, Resident of H.No.143 LIG, APHB Colony, Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh. 2. Y.Jayarami Reddy, Resident of H.No.143 LIG, APHB Colony, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Anaravati. ...RESPONDENT 2. P.Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o Late P.Seetharami Reddy, Aged about 41 Years, R/o House No.50/760 - D - 36, Birla Quarters, Devanagar, Kurnool. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 Quash -the entire proceedings ir C.C.No.780 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Dhone for the offences under Sections 447,427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of Crime No. 123 of 2017 on the file of the Veldurthi Police Station, as against the Petitioners herein, in the interest of equity in and justice while Cr.P.C. exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of LA. NO: 1 OF 2077 Petition under Section circumstances stated i 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings appearance of the Petitioners , as against the Petitioners herein, including the herein in C.C.No.780 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the or the offences under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of Crime No. 123 of 2017 Veldurthi Police Station, First Class, Dhone on the file of the pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA .Advocate Prosecutor upon hearing the arguments of Sri for the Petitioner and the Public and of Sri I. VENKATA on behalf of the Respondent No.1 PRASAD, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10275 nf onoo- Between: G.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Jayarami Reddy Resident of H.No.143 LIG, APHB Coiony, Kurnool. Aged about 56 Years Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Anaravati. represented by the Public Prosecutor. ...RESPONDENT 2. P.Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o Late P.Seetharami Reddy, Aged about 41 Years, R/o House No.50/760 - D - 36, Birla Quarters, Devanagar, Kurnool. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Dhone for the offences under Sections 447,427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of Crime No.194 of 2017 on the file of the Veldurthi Police Station, as against the Petitioner herein, in the interest of equity and justice while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. I.A. NO: 1 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, as against the Petitioners herein, including the appearance of the Petitioners herein in C.C.No.210 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Dhone, for the offences under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of Crime No.194 of 2017 on the file of the Veldurthi Police Station, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. CRIMINAL PETITIONNO.in277of 20P7- Between: G.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Jayarami Reddy Aged about 56 Years Resident of H.No.143 LIG, APHB Colony, Kurnool. Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented,by the Public Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Anaravati. ...RESPONDENT 2. P.Sathyanarayana Reddy, S/o Late P.Seetharami 41 Years. R/o House No.50/760 - D - 36, Birla Quarters Kurnool. Reddy, Aged about Devanagar, ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court may be pleased to Quash Petition, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.399 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Dhone for the offences under Sections 447,427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal on the file of the Veldurthi Code, arising out of Crime No.129 of 2017 Police Station, as against the Petitioners herein, in the interest of equity and justice while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. Section 482 of I.A. NO: 1 OF 7099 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further against the Petitioners herein, including the herein in C.C.No.399 of 2018 praying that in the Petition, proceedings, as appearance of the Petitioners on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Dhone, for the offences under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of Crime No.129 of 2017 on the file of the Veldurthi Police Station, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: APHC010698512022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10252/2022 Between: G.vijaya Lakshmi and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S): 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. INENI VENKATA PRASAD ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10275/2027 Between: G.vijaya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1 .VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent/comp!ainant(S): 1. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10277/2022 Between: G.vijaya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1 .SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- The Criminal Petition No.10252 of 2022 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.780 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. The Criminal Petition No.10275 of 2022 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.210 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. The Criminal Petition No.10277 of 2022 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Petitioner/Accused 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.399 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone. Heard Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the and Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.10252 of 2022 and Sri Sreemannarayana Vattikuti, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in Cri.P.Nos.10275 & 10277 of 2022. 2. Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned counsel learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent attendance. representing the No.1 is in 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would petitioner is Ms. G.Vijaya Lakshmi is the same submit that the in all the petitions. CRLP.No. 10252 of 2022 is filed by Ms. G.Vijaya Lakshmi and her husband Sri Y.Jayarami Reddy as A1 and A2. Learned counsel for the submit that respondent No.2 has executed petitioners would an agreement of sale relating to subject property. Basing on which, A1 filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale i.e. O.S.No.141 of 2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, 14.03.2019. Learned counsel would further submit that which was dismissed on being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal i.e., A.S.No.56 of 2019 which is pending on the file of I Additional District Court, Kurnool. Learned counsel would further submit that, relating to the alleged incident said to have been taken place on 17.07.2017, 18.07.2017, C.C.No.780 of 2017, relating to the alleged Incident dated 23.1^2.2017. 24,12.2017, C.C.No.210 of 2018 and 4 relating to the alleged incident dated 02.08.2017, C.C.No.399 of 2018 lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 IPC and in C.C.No.399 of 2018, Section 506 is also added. Learned counsel would further submit that the incident of trespass does not arise in the present case. In the light of the clear admission made by the complainant in the civil suit, the suit has been filed against respondent No.2 and others showing them as defendants. In the said suit, in the written statement as well as in the evidence, there is clear admission about the possession of the accused over the subject property. Such being the case, the question of trespass does not arise. In absence of any trespass, the offence under Section 427 has no application. Learned counsel would further submit that it is not even alleged that the petitioners assaulted respondent No.2. Then, the offence under Section 506 has no application to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel finally submits that the matter is of a civil nature. The petitioners have already approached the civil court long back by filing a suit for specific performance, which is pending for consideration before the competent civil court as of today. Continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit that petitioner herein is the own sister of respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner has created several documents by obtaining the signature of respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.2 has been in possession and enjoyment of the land since 4. zl 5 2012. Learned counsel would further submit that the the evidence by way of photos to show that the the acts of the petitioner. Learned reiterating his argument that the contentions raised prosecution has gathered entire crop was damaged by counsel prays for dismissal of the petition are matter of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, would submit that DW.3 in the civil suit is the mother of respondent No.2, who categorically admitted in the cross examination by the petitioners i.e. the accused are in the possession and enjoyment of the subject property. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the contents was submitted to the police for registration of the petitioners crop therein and also consequences by criminally intimidating them. Record of the information which case would show that on the date of alleged incident, the trespassed land of the complainant, damaged the threatened with dire further shows that a suit has been filed by the petitioner seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale alleged to have been respondent No.2, dated 12.10.2001. A executed by copy of the complaint and the written statement are placed on record. A cursory look at them would show that the contention of the plaintiff was that she was in possession of the land and possession was delivered subsequent to the agreement of sale, version of the defendants in the written statement that It is also the possession of the property was given to the petitioner in lieu of interest. The fact the contention of the defendants in the suit is to the effect that this i sale transaction, but in reality, it is a loan transaction i remains that IS not a in the garb of an statement would disclose that the the subject property is a permissive titioner/accused relating to loan agreement of sale. In that view, the written over possession of the petitioner possession in lieu of. interest due to the pe rightly put by learned counsel for the petitioners, a the said suit. The transaction. That apart, as mother of Respondent No.2 herein testified as DW.3 in is with the petitioner. A also would reveal that the evidence of DW.3 is that the possession of the property is in O.S.No.141 of 2011 documents to show their possession i perusal of the judgment petitioner herein as plaintiff filed the pattadar passbook, title i.e. deed book, and also bank loan receipt, etc. made by the party in pleadings stating that the petitioner entered ir land and damaged the crop therein, criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere In the light of the admissions 7. Court, they cannot take a U-turn before the subject property by trespassing their In that view, continuing the abuse of process of law. this Court has not expressed The matter is pending for decide the rights of both the parties This Court makes it clear that 8. touching the merits of the case anything consideration before the Civil Court to over the property, it is left open to the parties to raise their contentions before the Civil Court. This Court Is of the sole view that the matter is of purely civil In made out for Sections 447, 427 or 506. nature and no offence is In that view, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. 9. 7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU REGISTRAR rdFFICER ASSISTANT SEC’ 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, Kurnool District. 2. The Principal CivilJudge (Senior Division), Kurnool. 3. The Station House Officer, Veldurthy Police Station, Kurnool District. 4. One CC to SRI. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI, Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To, RDB PRK HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 COMMON ORDER; CRLP.Nos.10252,10275 and 10277 of 2022 S( 0 3 JUL 2025 1 entSectjQpxt €! CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE ALLOWED