IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ¥ WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o c? PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAP, CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3858 OF 2022 Between: Dadi Sri Rama Krishna, S/o. Sri Ramulu, Aged. 54 years, Gavara, R/o. D.No.15-1-36, Radha Madhav Towers, Ootagadda, Daspalla Hills, MR Peta, Visakhapatnam City. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINAN 2. Pukkela Venkata Krishna Mohan, S/o. Tulasi Raju, Age. 52 years, Vadabalija, R/o. D.No.45-50-22/6, Abid Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam City. 3. Pukkela Venkata Gopala Krishna, S/o. Tulasi Raju, Age. 19 years, Vadabalija, R/o. D.No.45-50-22/6, Abid Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam City. 4. Tummagunta Venkata Satya Rao, S/o. Guruvulu, Age. 35 yars, T. Kapu, R/o. D.No.8-66, Sattivanipalem, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam City. r 5. Lanka Adibabu, S/o. Late Pydanna, Age. 46 years, Kapu, R/o. D.No.5- 34, Sattivanipalem, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam City. ...RESPONDENTS/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANTS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS a ■: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 to call the records in CC No.4313/2021 on the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and quash the same, in the interests 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 stay all further proceedings in CC No.4313/2021 on the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition, 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 VENKAT CHALLA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri T. V. JAGGI REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, 3 & 5. The Court made the following order: r' APHC010241672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3858/2022 Between: DADI SRI RAMA KRISHNA, S/0. SRI RAMULU, AGED 54 YEARS GAVARA, OOTAGADDA, DASPALLA HILLS, MA PETA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED R/0. D.NO.15-1-36 RADHA MADHAV TOWERS, AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2.PUKKELA VENKATA KRISHNA MOHAN, S/0. TULASI RAJU, AGE. 52 YEARS, VADABALIJA, R/0. D.NO.45-50-22/6, ABID NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. 3. PUKKELA VENKATA GOPALA KRISHNA, S/0. TULASI RAJU, AGE. 19 YEARS, VADABALIJA, R/0. .D.NO.45-50-22/6, ABID NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. 4.TUMMAGUNTA VENKATA SATYA RAO, S/0. GURUVULU, AGE. 35 YARS, T. KAPU, R/0. D.NO.8-66, SATTIVANIPALEM, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. 5.LANKA ADIBABU, S/O. LATE PYDANNA, AGE. 46 YEARS, KAPU, R/0. D.NO.5-34, SATTIVANIPALEM, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.T VJAGGI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1 is preferred by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.4313 of 2021 on the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are bald and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that the suit in O.S.No.174 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam filed by Respondent No.2 herein for permanent injunction against the Petitioner herein was dismissed holding that Respondent No.2 is not entitled to any injunction with regard to the subject property. In view of the'cloud on the possession over the subject property, the question of alleged criminal trespass and by the Petitioner does not arise. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations attributed against the Petitioner do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the for short'Cr.P.C ^ forshort'IPC’ f. 3 Petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in S.Venkata Naga Kishore vs. State of A.P. and others^ and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr.Niyamathuila Khan vs. State of A.P. and another'^. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 4. would submit that they preferred appeal against the dismissal of the suit and obtained interim injunction and during subsistence of the same, the Petitioner trespassed into the subject property. Learned counsel would further submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner 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 Petitioner, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 5. learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.4313 of 2021 on the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam? Determinationby the Court A bare 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 6. 7. ^ CH.P.No.l07of 2020, dated 22.04.2024 '' Crl.P.Nos.773l & 10087 of 2014, dated 14.08.2023 n ■ 1i 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 8. 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 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 allegationsmade 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. 5 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 (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 purview 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 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 Nos.2 to 5 lodged the present complaint alleging that they have purchased the Plots in Sy.No.325/1, 2 and 3 of Sattivanipalem Panchayat Layout, Narava Village from one Dadi Chinna 9. Rao in July, 2001 and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. That being so, in September, 2014, the Petitioner herein grabbed their plots, constructed a shed and a borewell and laid fencing around the said plots. The Petitioner also placed a security person, who is not allowing Respondents Nos.2 to 5 inside and threatening them. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.600 of 2017 has been lodged against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC on the file of Pendurthy Police Station. The Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet for the alleged offences. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would clearly show that, with regard to the subject property. Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the Petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner herein and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Respondent No.2 over the subject property. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.02.2020 holding that, there is a strong cloud caste upon the title over the subject property and Respondent No.2 could not establish his possession over the same. Further, as seen from the judgment in O.S.No.174 of 2015, in the year 2002, when the vendor of Respondent No.2 along with others made hectic efforts to encroach upon the subject property, the Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.343 of 2002 the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein, a decree was passed in favour of the Petitioner herein. No appeal 10. on c • 7 has been preferred against the said judgment and the same attained finality. Further, the alleged vendor of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 i.e., Dadi Chinna Rao also filed O.S.No.101 of 2004 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam claiming possession over the said property and the said suit was dismissed holding that said Chinna Rao was not in possession and enjoyment of the property. In such circumstances, claiming title and possession over the subject property by Respondent Nos.2 to 5 through their vendor, is not tenable. When Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not in possession of the subject property, the alleged criminal trespass by the Petitioner 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 427 and 506 IPC also do not attract against the Petitioner. 11. The entire dispute revolves round the subject property and there involves the dispute of title and possession over the subject land. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioner by inviting the Police to be interfered with the civil litigation. 12. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others® the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 12 held as follows; “i2. 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 *’(2013) 11 see 673 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 essenhally of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence^ In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in n^!’ ^appeA7ecy in this case, the High Court should prLeoTmeclT abase of 13. On an overall consideration of the entire material the judgments referred to placed on record and supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions and the material produced mala fides in initiating criminal as an arm-twisting method to bring him to to cloak a civil dispute with criminal raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner before this Court directly indicate the proceedings against the Petitioner, the terms of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and nature. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, fhls Court the view that it is a fit case to exercise the are is of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner. 14. In result, the Criminal Petition i Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.4313 of 2021 Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC IS allowed and the proceedings against on the file of the Court of III for the offences under are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /^T^SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam 2. One CC to Sri Venkat Challa, Advocate [OPUC] ^ . 3. One CC to Sri T. V. Jaggi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] Three CD Copies 4. 5. SM ssb , n," HIGH COURT DATED:02/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3858 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION