IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ■- 'A.- A THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY fit TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o ■V ;f.o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1114 OF 2099 PRATAPA Between: 1. Muvva Pitchireddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, aged about 64 Ganapavaram, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. years, R/o 2. Muwa Rami Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy 57 years, R/o Ganapavaram Village Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. 3. Muvva Papi Reddy, S/o Pitchireddy, 32 years ,R/o Ganapavaram Village Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati High court ...Respondent 2. Kamma Sridhar, S/o Koteshwar Rao, Age. 36 years, Ganapavaram Village , Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cr.P.C. praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 343/2021 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sattenapalli, Guntur District. 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 stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of petitioners in C.C No.343/2021 on the of II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sattenapalli, Guntur District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Padala Venkata Sriram Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Smt. Marella Radha, Advocate for the Respondent No.02 The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010068432022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1114/2022 Between: Muwa Pitchireddy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): l.PADALA VENKATA SRIRAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.MARELLA RADHA a • ■ The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed, by the Petitioners/A. 1 to A.3, seeking to quash the Proceedings against them in CC No.343 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard Sri P.V.Sriram Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for . For short ‘the Code’ 2 respondent No.l/State and Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.l to A.3 in the above case for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel would submit that the allegation against Petitioner No. 1/A. 1 is that he fraudulently created a forged pattadar passbook and title deed relating to the land in Sy.No.229/49-lA & 3 to an extent of Ac.4.50 in Rajupalem village which belongs to the de facto Complainant/respondent No.2 and sold it to one Duggineni Seetharamaiah and another vide Registered Document dated 29.08.2007 and thereby cheated respondent No.2. Further, as per the charge sheet filed by the Police, in the year 1921, Kamma Kotaiah and Kamma Veeraiah purchased the said land in Sy.No.229/49-lA & 3 from Muwa Papi Reddy and Muwa Hanimireddy vide Registered sale deed under Doc.No. 564/1921. Later Kamma Veeraiah died and his legal heir, Kamma Venkata Narayana on record. After Kamma Venkata Narayana, his daughter-in-law, Kamma Lakshmi Devamma became his legal heir and she received the land to the total extent of Ac.7.00. Further, Lakshmi Devamma, grand-mother of respondent No.2 executed a registered will in favour of 2'''^ respondent. Since complainant was minor, his mother was shown as Guardian. It is the came s. further submitted that the father of respondent No.2 sold away 4 and Vi acres of land to Potti Venkata Kama Pardhasaradhi vide document No.2162/2007 on 25.05.2007. In this connection, a quarrel took place and a criminal case was filed which is subject matter of Crime No. 128 of 2007 of Piduguralla Police Station for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. In this connection, Respondent No.2 filed No. 106/2016 against the Petitioners for declaration of title consequential injunction which is pending before the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur. Learned counsel would submit that there are civil disputes pending between respondent No.2 and Petitioners since long time. Learned counsel would submit that the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking quashment of the Proceedings in CC No.22 of 2017, on the file of the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, in connection with Crime No.22 of 2017 of Rajupalem Police Station which Crime has been registered against the Petitioners basing on the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 16.02.2016. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that though respondent No.2 is not a party to the Proceedings of the Tahsildar, he gave the present complaint against the Petitioners which is not maintainable in law. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming to be the owner of the property and a person executing the sale a suit in OS and 4 %■ deed by impersonating the owner. The execution of such document is not falling under the execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. When it is not a false document, the question of forgery does not arise and if there is no allegation of forgery within the of the Indian Penal Code, then the ingredients of Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. -5, To buttress his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Md.Ibrahim & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Anr^. The purchaser of the property is not the complainant in the instant case. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused tried to deceive him and induce him to deliver his property. Learned counsel would finally submits that in the absence of ingredients either to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC for creating a forged document, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the Petitioners without having any title to the property, fabricated the false and fake pattadar pass book and sold the property. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.2 after coming to know meaning on any I 2010 AIR sew 405 % 5 about the fraudulent act of the petitioners, made a representation to the MRO to verify about the genuineness of the pattadar passbooks. Simultaneously, respondents also filed a suit in OS No. 106 of 2016 seeking a declaration of title which is pending on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur. Further, during the pendency of the said suit, the Tahsildar issued proceedings dated 09.02.2017 stating that as per 1-B register, Khata No.967 was issued in favour of Muwa Raghava Reddy. As per the revenue records, no pattadar passbooks were issued in favour of A.l with Khata No.967. Learned counsel would submit that after registering the case against the Petitioners, they have filed a rectification deed changing the boundaries of the land to cover up their fraud. Learned counsel would submit that after due investigation, police have filed a charge sheet clearly speaking about the fake pattadar passbook obtained by the Petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the Tahsildar report would show that the pattadar pass book was not issued to A.l. The allegations relating to forgery and cheating are to be tried at length. It is further submitted that the genuineness of the documents cannot be decided under Section 482 of the Code. Learned counsel would further argue that mere pendency of the civil suits between the parties may not be a ground for quashment of the criminal Proceedings against the Petitioners. The civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously. 6 Learned counsel would submit that that the pattadar passbook i submit that when no iota of material was filed to show IS a genuine one. Learned counsel would finally prima facie allegations and cheating, this Court cannot interfere jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. are on record regarding forgery in the matter while exercising the 7. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioners father of respondent would submit that the away the land and the alleged IS a genesis of lodging the present IS the brother of A.l and A.3 is the attestor No.2 sold endorsement of Tahsildar, which i did not attain finality. The A.2 on the sale deed and he i‘ mentioned in the report that action Learned counsel would further case IS a practising Advocate. The Tahsildar will be taken after filing the civil submit that OS No. 106 of 2016 restoration has been filed. Learned clearly suit. was dismissed for default and appeal for counsel would submit that the ari grievance of respondent No.2 is that the petitioners created pattadar passbooks and sold away the property. She reiterates her stand that the father of respondent No.2 sold away the land and that respondent No.2 has no locus standi to file the present complaint, property from respondent No.2 filed The statement of L.W.l is very clear The third parties who purchased the the civil suits in OS No.455 of 2014. to the effect that 13 years after getting the property by their father, present case has been lodged. Learned counsel the would submit that the 7 grievance of the complainant is that the Petitioners created pattadar passbook and sold away the subject property to a third party. Learned counsel would submit that the person, who purchased the property from A.l, filed a suit in OS No.455 of 2014 against the person, who purchased the property from the father of respondent No.2. The said suit was decreed in favour of the vendee of A.l and no appeal has been preferred so far. The Office of the Tahsildar has not updated the entries in the registe.c for issuance of pattadar passbooks in the name of A.l. The A.l has also submitted an application to the revenue authorities for verification of the genuineness of the pattadar passbook issued in his favour by the office of the Tahsildar by the predecessor in office by the Tahsildar. Learned counsel would submit that the endorsement of the Tahsildar to the effect that they have not issued pattadar passbook to A.l is not reached finality. 8. A keen perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends ofjustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice. 8 depending on the facts and circumstances of the be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of case. These powers must process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State ofHaryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various reievant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the pnncipies of iaw enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions reiatmg to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Articie 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the foiiowing categories of cases by way of iiiustration wherein such power couidbe exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible to iay down any precise, cieariy defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order ofa Magistrate within the purview ofSection 155(2) of the Code. 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 9 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizabie offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with maia fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and persona! grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitraiy jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." (emphasis supplied) 10. As can be seen from the above judgment, the first guideline is to the effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true their face value, if they do not constitute an offence, then the FIR can be quashed. On this touchstone, when the complaint allegations are an on 10 0 perused in the instant case, the main allegation is that the Petitioners herein have used the forged date of birth certificate of A.l. The present case has been lodged by respondent No.2 who is the father of the divorced husband of A.l. 11. Considering the submissions, a fair look at the material record, and also the additional material submitted by the learned counsel representing both parties, the fact remains that the genesis of lodging the present criminal case against the petitioners is based on an endorsement of the Tahsildar. It is also not in dispute that the father of respondent No.2 sold away the property. Likewise, A.l has sold away the property to an extent of Ac.4.00 to one Duggineni Seetharamaiah. 12. The contention of the Petitioners is that the subject property is the ancestral property of A.l. The A.2 is the brother of A.l and A.3 is the son of A.l. The said Duggineni Seetharamaiah, who purchased the property from A.l, filed a suit for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction in OS N0.465 of 2014 against the vendee. Admittedly, the said suit was decreed in favour of the Vendee of A.l declaring the title in his favour. That apart, permanent injunction was also granted in favour of the Vendee of A.l. 13. As can be seen from the material on record, the northern boundary of the property of respondent No.2 belonged to the father of on 11 Petitioner No.l. OS No.106/2016 has been filed by respondent No.2 and his mother against A.l/Duggineni Seetharamaiah, who is the vendee and who purchased the property from A.l. The suit is filed for declaration of title. Decree in OS No.331 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sathenapalli is not binding on the plaintiffs since the decree is obtained by playing fraud. Admittedly, OS No.106/2016 was filed by respondent No.2 and his mother and it was dismissed for default. 14. It is placed on record that lA No. 1115 of 2023 has been filed before the Court for restoration of the said suit. Yet another suit in OS No. 1038 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Guntur was filed by respondent No.2 and his mother against Duggineni Koteswara Rao and D.Butchamma seeking permanent injunction. 15. Now it is relevant to extract the Endorsement dated 09.02.2017 of the Tahsildar, and it reads as under: Rc.No.201/2015-A, Tahsildar's Office Rajupalem, Dated 09.02.2017 ENDORSEMENT Sub R.O.R - Guntur District - Rajupalem Mandal and Rajupalem Village - S.No.229/49- 1A.3- Ac.4.50 Cents - Rep. filed by Sri Kamma Sridhar for cancellation of Tempered Forged Pattadar Pass Book relates to Sri Muwa Pithci Reddy and for not to Mutate any name in the web land-Endorsement - issued. Ref:-l.This Office Endorsement in Rc.No.201/2015-A.dt. 16/02/2016. 2. Representation of Sri Kamma Sridhar S/o Koteswara Rao of Ganapavaram Village Rajupalem Mandal Presently residing at Hyderabad dt.02.02.2017.received in this Office on 08.02.2017 3. Other connected Record..^ . , 12 8(.&8i In the reference cited Sri Kamma Sridhar S/o Koteswara Rao has sent ■ oto representations through the registered post with a r?qS to take ifoa Proceedings against Sri Muwa Pitchi Reddy for tampered/forged ?hfpa4da Butcha™ WM ^^9gineni Koteswara Rao S/o Narasaiah. Duggineni Butchamma W/o.Koteswara Rao, Duggineni Sita Ramaiah S/o Koteswara Rao S/o.Girija Aruna Rao for an extent of Ac.12.00 cents in Sy No 229/49-1A and f^Stton) SchedurSed On verification of Connected file It is revealed that a suit in aS.No.488/2013 is pending in the Hon’ble senior Civil Judge Court, Sattenapalli and another suit is also pending in O.S.No.106/2016 in the Court of Hon'btelll Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Guntur Though an endorsement was issued by the then Tahsildar, Rajupalem Mandal in the reference cited at present two suits are Pending with regard to the title over the Disputed Land 'as such taking of Legal Proceedings against Sri Muwa Pitchi Reddy and Cancellation 0 Reg. Doc.No.3938/2007 dt.29-08-2007, is to be Initiated only after the orders 22QMQ 000/ the land in Rajupalem Village. Hence, It Is Informed that after Receipt of the Court Judgment further action will be initiated under the Provisions of R.O.R Act and as well as under other Acts. However as per your further changes will be made either in the Revenue record or in the Web Land in favour of the persons mentioned in your representation. in his Sd/-13.2.17 Tahsildar, Rajupalem Mandal To 1. Sri Kamma Sridhar, plot.no.236, H.No.2-23-8/236, first floor, Bhagyshagar Phase -3. Samantha Nagar, opp.JNTU Nagar, HMT Hills Colony. Kukatoalli' Hyderabad,pin.500085. 2. Copy submitted to the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur. 3. Copy submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur. 4. Copy to the S.H.O.Rajupalem. 13 16. It is also placed on record that A.l has submitted an application to the revenue authorities to verify the genuineness of the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of A.l. In that connection, the office of the Tahsildar requested A.l to submit his original pattadar passbook along with relevant documents to submit a report to the District collector. The Office of the Tahsildar, Rajupalem, dated 27.02.2017 issued the endorsement and it reads thus: Office of the Tahsildar, Rajupalem, Dated: 27-02-2017 RC.No.201/2015-A ENDORSEMENT The Petition submitted by Sri Muwa Pitchi Reddy, S/o. Venkatareddy and Sri Muwa Papi Reddy, S/o. Pitchi Reddy to the District Collector in Mee Kosam Programme and the same had been looked into: Upon investigation regarding the S.No: 229/49-3 in an extent of Ac. 4.00 cents, two civil suits i.e O.S.No: 488/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and O.S.No: 106/2016 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur are pending and only after the judgement of the Courts, any action would be taken upon your petition. Sd/- Deputy Tahsildhar Rajupalem Mandal 17. The cumulative effect that the endorsement of the Tahsildar basing on the date on which the present crime has been lodged is to the effect that the civil suits are pending before the competent civil courts and till the issue is adjudicated by the civil court, the revenue authorities cannot proceed with the said endorsement. 14 18. Coming to the allegations made against the Petitioners, pattadar passbooks stand in the name of A.l. According to the prosecution, it was not given by the office of the Tahsildar, Rajupalem. The fact remains that the civil suits are pending before the competent Civil Court. The of Petitioner No.l and also the ancestor of Respondent No.2 are having lands adjacent to each other. Admittedly, petitioners filed an application for restoration of the suit in OS No.106 of 2016, which was filed for declaration of title which is ancestor ■=! comprehensive in nature. 19. As rightly put by learned counsel for the Petitioners when the endorsement of the Tahsildar has not reached the finality, that apart, when the civil suits are pending before the competent civil Courts, lodging the criminal cases basing on the information obtained by the Tahsildar, which has not attained finality is unwarranted and hence, continuing such proceedings is sheer abuse of process of law. 20. In addition to that, A.l has sold away the property to Duggineni Seetharamaiah. It is not the case that he has executed the sale one deed by impersonating the real owner. The vendee of A.l filed a suit for declaration of title against the vendee of the father of respondent No.2 relating to the subject property and obtained a favourable decree. Though it is an ex-parte decree, that it is as good as the decree of the Civil Court obtained on merits, further-more, OS No. 106/2016 filed by respondent 15 No.2 which is filed for declaration of title and also for declaration of the decree obtained the civil suit, are not binding since it is obtained by fraud. When such issues are pending before the competent Civil Court in all four civil suits are filed and respondent No.2 could not get any favourable orders in the said suits, lodging the present criminal case simply basing on the endorsement of the Tahsildar even without recording his statement as a witness in the criminal case is not justified. 21. For the foregoing discussion. This Criminal Petition is allowed and the Proceedings in CC No.343 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli against the Petitioners /A.l to A.3 are hereby quashed. However, it is left open to respondent No.2 to raise all the contentions before the Civil Court in defence with regard to the pattadar passbooks stand in the name of Petitioner No.l is created and forged by A.l. The Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders according to law without influenced by the Orders of this Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sattenapalli, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Sri. Padala Venkata Sriram Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. Marella Radha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies To, SD sree HIGH COURT DATED;23/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1114 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION