IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 3007 OF 2022 & 3025 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3007 OF 2022 Between: 1. G.Munikrishna Reddy, S/o. Late G.Muni Reddy, Hindu, aged about 74 years, residing at D’No.11-214/302, Komal Nivas, S.V.Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. G.Gangi Reddy, Age. ^Q^iyrs, S/o G.Muni Reddy, Door No. 3-80, Sreenivasamangapurpmi - Narsingapuram, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittor District. 3. V. Karunakar Reddy, AgW-'58 yrs, S/o V.Subba Reddy, Door No. 2-12/F, Perumalapalli village, Mallavaram, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 4. G. Padmaja, Age. 61 yrs, W/o T.Narayana Reddy, Door No. 2-12/H, Near Cell tower, Perumalapalli village, Mallavaram, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ' 5. G. Neeraja, Age. 49 yrs, W/o V.Karunakar Reddy, Door No. 2-12/F, Perumalapalli village, Mallavaram. Tirupati. i's '■ V.,‘ ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1,3,4,5,6 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Amaravathi. ^ 2. P.Venkatarayulu, Tahsildhar, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS V 'rr; r Petition under Section ,482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the stated in the Mernprandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings as against Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1,3,4,5 &,6 in CC No. 684 of 2019 on the file of The IV Additional Junior Civil Jpdge, Tirupathi under Sections 353, 447, 427, 506 r/w34 IPC. I.A. NO: 2 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 C.C.No.684 of 2019 on the file of the IV -Addltidhal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi under sections 353, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. This Petition coming on forrhearjng, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition awd upon hearing the arguments of VMR LEGAL for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. " ^ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3025 Of^ 2022 Between: G.Munikrishna Reddy, S/o. Late G.Muni Reddy, Hindu, aged about 74 years, residing at D.No.11-214/302, Komal Nivas, S.V.Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. !■/ •• ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Amaravathi. 2. P.Venkatarayulu, Tahsildhar,' Chandragiri Mandal Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 proceedings as against Petitioners/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.157 OF 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi under Sections 353, 447, 427, 506 of IPC. ■'a, LA, NO: 2 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 C.C.No.157 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi under Sections 353, 447, 427, 506 of IPC. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of VMR LEGAL for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2. The Court made the following none appeared for the t Vv -V ... APHC010181512022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY.THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3007/2022 Between: G.munikrishna Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The Stat^f Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 1.VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1 .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3025/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED G.munikrishna Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VMR LEGAL 2 V> Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S); 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) \ 3 ORDER: The criminal petition No.3025 of 2022 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accuse d No.1 seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.157 of 2018, on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. 2 The criminal petition No.3007 of 2022 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.684 of 2019, on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. Criminal Petition No.3025 of 2022 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 447, 427, 506 IPC, despite an injunction order was in force in favour of the petitioner as on the date of the alleged incident. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.191 of 2016 against the respondent No.2 and others for permanent injunction, 'n I.A.No.412 of 2016, the petitioner obtained temporary injunction in his favour regarding the subject land,wcfe orders dated 06.04.2016. Learned counsel would further submit that the interim order of injunction was extended from time to time and it is still in force. Learned counsel would 3. further submitthat the alleged incident said to have taken place 30.12.2017 between 11 to 12 hours. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner herein also filed Writ Petition No.44041 of 2018 against respondent No.2 and others not to dispossess him without due process of law, wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 passed an order directing the official respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law vide orders dated Learned counsel would finally submit that in the light of the order of injunction passed by the competent civil Court wherein respondent No.2 was also a party, the allegations made in the complaint on the face of it would not attract the offences under Sections 353, 447, 427 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. Criminal Petition No.3007 of 2022 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the on 11.12.2018. petitioners herein are A.1, A.3, A.4, A.5, and A.6. A.1 is the same person involved in Crl.P.No.3025 of 2022. In the present case, apart from A.1, his family members have also been included as accused. Learned counsel would submit that the alleged incident in this case took place on 23.11.2018, and the crime was lodged on 26.11.2018 for offences punishable under Sections 353, 447, 427, and 506 of the IPC. Learned that the complaint indicates that the petitioners counsel would submit are accused of encroaching upon government land. Additionally, the petitioners filed O.S. No. 488 of 1977 for a permanent injunction before the 1st Additional District MunsiffCourt, Tirupathi, which was decreed in their favor on 08.06.1977. Learned counsel would submit that after issuing notice to the government under Section 80 of the CPC on 12.06.2016, A.1 filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 197 of 2016, against respondent No. 2 and others, and obtained an order of temporary injunction in his favor in I.A. No. 1 of 2018, dated 11.12.2018. As of the date of the present incident, the injunction granted by the competent authority in favor of the petitioner was still in force. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are in a settled position on the scheduled property, as ordered by the coordinate bench of this Court in \j\j p No. 44041 of 2018, initiated through due process of law. The revenue authorities may take appropriate steps to evict the petitioners if they are found to be in possession of government land. Given this, lodging a serious criminal case against the petitioners appears to be an attempt to exert to settle terms. Learned counsel would submit that the injunction pressure granted in favor of the petitioners has been extended from time to time in the said civil suit, with respondent No. 2 and others also shown as parties to the suit. Finally, learned counsel would submit that, as parties to the civil suit who have suffered an injunction order, the attempt to forcibly evict the is untenable under the law. It is alleged against the petitioners petitioners that they have caused damage to the fencing and removed stones that fixed. Learned counsel would submit that continuing criminal were proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that, based on the contents of the complaint, the allegations against the petitioners would attract the offences alleged. However, in light of the orders passed by the civil court granting a temporary injunction in favor of the petitioners against respondent No. 2 and others, the Court may pass appropriate orders. Considering the submissions made and a fair examination of the material placed on record, it remains undisputed that A.I's father filed O.S. No. 448 of 1977 for a permanent injunction against one Ramachandraiah and several others. The suit was decreed in his favor by order dated 08.06.1977. It is also undisputed that the petitioner herein, after issuing a 7. notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the government, filed O.S. No. of 2016, in which respondent No. 2 was shown as defendant No. 1. Further, it is not in dispute that in the said suit, in I.A. No. 412 of 2016, the petitioner obtained an order of injunction in his favor by orders dated 06.04.2016. It is also not in dispute that the said order of injunction has been extended from time to time. In this context, a cursory review of the report submitted to the police by the Tahsildar reveals that the land is government property and that the petitioners are alleged to have encroached on it. It is further alleged that when they visited the land, they assaulted a public servant and caused damage to the land. Additionally, A.1 filed Writ Petition No. 191 8. 44041 of 2018, in which the coordinate bench of this Court passed an order in I.A. No. 1 of 2018, dated 11.12.2018, directing the official respondents not to 7 *T>< dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of law. It is not the case of respondent No. 2 that any legal process has 9. been initiated to evict the petitioner from the subject land, assuming the land is indeed government land. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land even prior to the date of the alleged incident. Given that the civil suit is still pending, and respondent No. 2 has suffered an injunction without taking any action to resolve the civil suit, initiating any process to dispossess the petitioners from the land, such as visiting the land, fencing it, or fixing stones, is not expected from a public servant. 10. In view of the above, the offences alleged against the petitioners have not been prima facie established. Consequently, these criminal petitions are allowed. This Court makes it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits about the truth or otherwise of the contentions related to the rights and title over the subject property. This order does not preclude respondent No. 2 from initiating any legal process according to law. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stands closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT ^^GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional Junior ClVil Judge, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District 2. One CC to VMR LEGAL [OPUC] 3. One CC to the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies GPC (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED: 06/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3007 of 2022 & 3025 of 2022 y .* ‘i-: ALLOWING THESE CRLPs