, V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9825 OF 2022 Between: 1. Chandaluri Babu Rao, S/o. Seetharama Sastri, aged 55 years, Brahmin, Occ Archaka, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 2. Niaddineni Rama Kotaiah, S/o Ankamma, Aged 77 years, Khamma, Occ Agriculture, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 3. Chandanuri Chandana, D/o Rajeswara Sastri, Aged 31 years. Brahmin, Occ House Wife, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 4. Chandaluri Rajeev Sharma, S/o. Rajeswara Sastri, Aged 28years, Brahmin, Occ Archaka, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 5. Chandaluri Sarath Babu, S/o. Babu Rao, aged 32 years. Brahmin, Occ Archaka, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 6. Nagarikanti Gopi Sarma, S/o Visweswara Rao, Aged 33 years. Brahmin, Occ Archaka, Daivalaravuru Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 1. Chandaluri Peraiah Sastry, S/o Sitharama Sastry, Aged 48 years, Brahmin, Occ Archaka, V.Kopperapadu Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 8. Chandaluri Nagalakshmi, W/o Chandaluri Babu Rao, Aged 60 years. Brahmin, Occ House Wife, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Bapatia District (Earlier Prakasam District). 9. Chandaluri Venkateswarlu, S/o Appa Rao, Aged 65 years, Brahmin, Occ Archaka, Kakuturu Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 10. Chandaluri Prakasa Rao, S/o Sitarama Sastry, Aged 70 years. Brahmin, Occ Retired Doctor, Bhogolu Bitragunta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 11. Gottipati Kaja Swami, S/o. Anjaneyulu, aged 40 years, Kamma, Occ Agriculture, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Prakasam District. 12. Chandaluri Rajeswara Sastri @ Rajaiah Sastri, S/o. Seetharama Sastri, Brahmin, aged 60 years, Nujellapalli Village, J. Pangular Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioners/Accused 1-12 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Station House Officer, J. Pangulur Police Station, Prakasam District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati. 2. Devara Rajani Kumari, W/o Krishna Madhu Kumar, Erukala, Aged 42 years, Occ Executive Officer, Davaguduru of Groups of Temples, Jagurumalli Mandal, Kondepi Constituency, Prakasam District % ...Respondents r 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 proceeding in CC 326 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District (FIR.No.59 of 2015, dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the J Panguluru Police Station, Prakasam District (presently Bapatia District)) against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 12. 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 in CC 326 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam (FIR.No.59 of 2015, dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the J Panguluru Police Station, Prakasam District (presently Bapatia District)) against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 12 including their appearance. District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: APHC010669412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] f.- THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9825/2022 Between; 1. CHANDALURI BABU RAO, S/0. SEETHARAMA SASTRI, AGED 55 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC ARCHAKA, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 2. NIADDINENI RAMA KOTAIAH, S/0 ANKAMMA, AGED 77 YEARS, KHAMMA, OCC AGRICULTURE, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 3. CHANDANURI CHANDANA, D/0 RAJESWARA SASTRI, AGED 31 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC HOUSE WIFE, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 4. CHANDALURI RAJEEV SHARMA, S/0. RAJESWARA SASTRI, AGED 28YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC ARCHAKA, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 5. CHANDALURI SARATH BABU, S/0. BABU RAO, AGED 32 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC ARCHAKA, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 6. NAGARIKANTI GOPI SARMA, S/0 VISWESWARA RAO, AGED 33 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC ARCHAKA, DAIVALARAVURU VILLAGE, KORISAPADU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAMDISTRICT). 7. CHANDALURI PERAIAH SASTRY, S/0 SITHARAMA SASTRY, AGED 48 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC ARCHAKA, V.KOPPERAPADU VILLAGE, BALLIKURUVA MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 8 CHANDALURI NAGALAKSHMI, W/0 CHANDALURI BABU RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC HOUSE WIFE, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (EARLIER PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 9 CHANDALURI VENKATESWARLU, S/0 APPA RAO, AGED 65 2 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC ARCHAKA, KAKUTURU VILLAGE, VENKATACHALAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 10 CHANDALURI PRAKASA RAO, S/0 SITARAMA SASTRY, AGED 70 YEARS, BRAHMIN, OCC RETIRED DOCTOR, BHOGOLU BITRAGUNTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 11.GOTTIPATI KAJA SWAMI, S/0. ANJANEYULU, AGED 40 YEARS, KAMMA, OCC AGRICULTURE, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 12.CHANDALURI RAJESWARA SASTRI @ RAJAIAH SASTRI, S/0. SEETHARAMA SASTRI, BRAHMIN, AGED 60 YEARS, NUJELLAPALLI VILLAGE, J. PANGULAR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, J. PANGULUR POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2 DEVARA RAJANI KUMAR, W/O KRISHNA MADHU KUMAR, ERUKALA, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DAVAGUDURU OF GROUPS OF TEMPLES, JAGURUMALLI MANDAL, KONDEPI CONSTITUTENCY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S); Counselfor the Petitioner/accused(S); 1.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLICPROSECUTOR(AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ is preferred by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.326 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District for the offences for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 3 under Sections 447, 434, 506 and 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for 2. Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations 3. leveled against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner No.1 is the Archaka of the subject temple. It is submitted that, the father of Petitioner No.1 and others filed O.S.No.218 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki for grant of permanent injunction against the Endowment Authorities and others and the same was decreed in their favour. The appeal preferred against the said judgment by the Executive Officer of the subject temple was also dismissed by Learned counsel would further submit that, during the Appellate Court, subsistence of the decree of permanent injunction, the temple authorities tried to dispossess Petitioner No.1 and his family members from the subject lands. As such, they filed W.P.Nos.19480 and 24632 of 2015, wherein, this Court granted interim stay and also police aid respectively. It is submitted that the Respondent-Police, without taking the judgments of the competent Civil Court and the orders passed by this Court, into consideration, registered the FIR and filed charge sheet as if the Petitioners have committed the alleged offences. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against ^ for short‘IPC 4 the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Contrasting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would 4. submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both 5. the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 12 in C.C.No.326 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District? Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 6. 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 of justice. 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, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana 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: 7. “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly 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 prime 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 of a Magistrate within the pun/iew of Section 155(2) of the Code. (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-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 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 mala 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 personal 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 an 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 arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." (emphasis supplied) In the present case, Respondent No.2, who is the Executive Officer of 8. Sri Rajeswara Swamyvari temple, Nujellapalli Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, lodged the present complaint alleging that, as per the orders of the Joint Commissioner, Ongole, on 01.07.2015, she along with the other officials tried to conduct auction for the lands of the subject temple in an extent of Ac. 16.32 cents in Sy.No.25/1 and Ac. 10.70 cents in Sy.No.76/2. At that time. Petitioners herein came there and showed them the interim stay order granted by this Court to stop the auction for a period of four weeks. As per the said orders, they postponed the auction for a period of four weeks directing them 7 not to enter into the said land without any permission. That being so, Respondent No.2 came to know that the said lands were ploughed and the survey stones laid by the Revenue Authorities were also removed by the Petitioners. When Respondent No.2 questioned Petitioner No.1 about the said acts over phone, he abused her in filthy language and also threatened to see her end if she conducts auction for the said lands. As such, she lodged a complaint with the Police against the Petitioners which was registered as a case in Crime No.59 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 447, 434, 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC. The Police after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the Petitioners herein for the alleged offences. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said case against them. 9. As seen from the record, the ancestors of Petitioner No.1 had filed O.S.No.218 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki seeking permanent injunction against the Endowments Authorities, over the subject property. There is no dispute about passing of decree dated 29.11.1999 in the said suit. Further, the appeal in A.S.No.1 of 2000 preferred by the Executive Officer of the subject temple against the said decree was also dismissed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki vide Judgment dated 26.02.2004. It is not the case of Respondent No.2 that they have preferred Second Appeal against the said judgment. In view of the decree of permanent injunction. Petitioner No.1 and his family members are in possession of the subject lands. 8 10. The material on record further discloses that, when the temple authorities tried to dispossess the Petitioners from the subject land, Petitioner No.1 and his brother filed W.P.No.19480 of 2015 before this Court, wherein an interim stay was granted directing the temple authorities not to finalise the Subsequently, they have also filed W.P.No.24632 of 2015 seeking Respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein, to provide police aid and this Court directed the Respondents therein to provide police auction proceedings until orders. aid. 11. In view of the decree of injunction passed in O.S.No.218 of 1984 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, protecting the possession of the Petitioner No.1 and his family members over the subject property, the alleged criminal trespass by the Petitioners which is punishable under Section 447 IPC does not attract. In the absence of the ingredients under Section 447 IPC, the consequential offences under Sections 434, 506 and 509 IPC also do not attract against the Petitioners. The entire dispute revolves round the subject property and there involves the dispute of possession over the subject land. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and Respondent No.2 resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioners by inviting the Police to be interfered in the civil litigation. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others'^ the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 12 held as follows: 12. 13. '‘(2013) 11 see 673 I ' “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. ” 14. In view of the above discussion and the judgments referred to supra, even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 12 in C.C.No.326 of 2016 on the file of the Court 15. of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 447, 434, 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District. 2. The Station House Officer, J. Pangulur Police Station, Prakasam District. 3. One CC to Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies sree HIGH COURT DATED: 17/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9825 of 2022 s( 0'|JUL 2025 )% ^Vci«"ntSwlio|tX;$/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION