r 9r V % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ n y o o ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3206 OF 2022 Between; 1. Yanamala Praveen Kumar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, S/o. Yanamala Nagi Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Velgode Police Station, Kurnool District, R/o. 3-130-A, Lavanuru, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Budda Srikantha Reddy, aged about 42 years, S/o B. Rammohan Reddy, Occ; Doctor, R/o Flat No.407, Seshasai Brundavan, Balaji Complex, Nadyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO 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 pleased to Quash the C.C.No. 119/2020 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Andhra Pradesh, in the interest of equity and justice while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to the extent of the Petitioner herein Jt-' ‘ /.. NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: 1. Budda Srikantha Reddy, aged about 42 years, S/o B. Rammohan Reddy, Occ: Doctor, R/o Flat No.407, Seshasai Brundavan, Balaji Complex, Nadyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT N0.2 AND 1. Yanamala Praveen Kumar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, S/o. Yanamala Nagi Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Velgode Police Station, Kurnool District, R/o. 3-130-A, Lavanuru, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND 2. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 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 vacate the interim orders passed in CrI.P.No.3206/2022 dated 28-04-2022 and consequential orders dated 10- 11 -2022 in the interest of justice. 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. including appearance of the Petitioner in C.C.No.119/2020 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Andhra Pradesh, 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 N ASHWANI KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010211102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3206/2022 Between; Yanamala Praveen Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.NASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.119 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 471, 120-B, 389, 177 and 469 of IPC. 2. Heard Ms. K.Rithvika, learned counsel, representing Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2 Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for 3. the State/Respondent No.1 is in attendance. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner 4. herein is A1. He was the Sub-Inspector of Police at the time of registration of case against him. Learned counsel would further submit that no case is made out against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 469, 471, 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel further submits that in fact basing on the report submitted by A3, a case has been lodged against respondent No.2 herein, which is Crime No.84 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 394, 452, 427 and 506 read with 149 IPC. Respondent No.2 herein preferred CrI.P.No.12891 of 2016, seeking quashment of the case against him in Crime No.84 of 2016. The said case was quashed in the light of the amicable settlement between the parties. Learned counsel would further submit that by recording the compromise, case quashed against respondent No.2. Thereafter respondent No.2 lodged this case against the petitioner alleging that A1, A2 in conspiracy with A3 lodged a false case against him in Crime No.84 of 2016. Respondent No.2 to know through the complainant in Crime No.84 of 2016 that his signature was obtained on a white paper for lodging a false case against respondent No.2 herein. Learned counsel would further submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that Court was came 5. may pass appropriate orders. 3 Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the private complaint which was filed by respondent No.2 would reveal that the genesis of lodging the present case against the petitioner herein is based on the earlier case which is Crime No.84 of 2016 lodged against respondent No.2 herein. It is alleged that at the instance of A3 in the present case, A1 and A2 who are the police officials obtained the signature of one P. Venkata Ramana, who the complainant in Crime No.84 of 2016 and fabricated the complaint to the effect that while workers are doing work at the power plant, the respondent No.2 herein along with 20 others went there and bet the driver and cleaner of the tipper, cut the tipper tire, took away the battery of the tipper. Admittedly, Crime No.84 of 2016 was registered on 24.08.2016. It is alleged in the complaint that a news item was published on 25.08.2016. Then, P.Venkata Ramana, who was the de facto-complainant in Crime No.84 of 2016 informed respondent No.2 herein that he never made any complaint against him. His signature was obtained by the police on a white paper. The order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in CrI.P.No.12891 of 2016, dated 31.08.2019 is placed on record. It is beneficial to extract the order referred (supra):- 6. I was “Today, when the matte came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have amicably settled the matter and filed Crl.M.P.Nos.14477 and 14478 of 2016 in Crl.P.No.12891 of 2016 to permit them to compound the above offences and to quash the proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that in the present case some of the offences are compoundable and as the parties have settled the matter, sought this court, to record compromise and quash the proceedings. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment in YOGENDRA YADAV .V STATE OF JHARKHAND^ wherein the Apex Court held that “However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the non- 4 X- parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable.” Both the parties are present and submitted that they have amicably settled the matter and the respondent/de-facto complainant may be permitted to compound the above offences. The parties are identified by their counsel. The parties have signed in the joint memorandum of compromise and the same has been counter signed by their respective counsel. In view of these circumstances and the law laid down by Apex court in Yogendra Yadav’s case (supra), the CrI.M.P.Nos. 14477 and 14478 of 2016 in CrI.P.No.12891 of 2016 are allowed and the joint memorandum of compromise is made part of this order. The proceedings in Crime No.84 of 2016 on the file of Velugodu Police Station, Kurnool, registered against the petitioner, who is sole accused, for the alleged offences punishable 147, 148, 323, 394, 452, 427, 506 r/w 149 IPC are hereby quashed and the criminal petition is allowed in terms of the compromise.” A cursory look at the order extracted above, there is no finding or observation by the Court that a false complaint lodged against respondent 7. No.2 i.e. Crime No.84 of 2016. It is not the case that the defacto-complainant in Crime No.84 of 2016 represented before the Court that his signature was obtained by the Police on a white paper to help at the instance of A3. The order is very clear to the effect that parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection. It is also vivid that parties are well represented by their respective counsels on record in the above case. Such being the case, giving go by to the compromise which was recorded by the Court basing on which the case against respondent No.2 has been quashed. Taking a diametrically opposite contention and lodging the present case is a sheer abuse of process of law. In that view, the Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed, since no 8. offence is made out against the petitioner as allegedly. 5 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SOI- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To St Class, Atmakur, Andhra Pradesh, 1. The Judicial Magistrate of 1 2. One CC to SRI. N ASHWANI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. P. NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Sm TAC /3 HIGH COURT DATED;22/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3206 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION