IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE AT AMARAVATI OF FEBRUARY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA CRIMINAL PFTiTinM>P>L JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 11943 OF 2016 & 6620 QF 2027 CRIMINAL PETITION Mn OF 2016 Between: 1. Goriparthi Raj Venkateswara Yadav, S/o Rama Raju, Hindu 45 years, Agriculture, Guduru Village 2. Katragadda Venkataranga Rap, aged Guduru Mandal, Krishna District S/o late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu years. Agriculture, Machilipatnam, Krishna aged 50 District. .PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOs. 1&2 AND Represented by its Public Prosecutor of Telangana and for State 1- the STATE OF A.P. High Court of Andhra at Hyderabad for the State Pradesh. 2. Loya Biksham @ Bhikshalu (Died) 3. Loya Nageswararamma, years, agriculture, R/6.D;No:2-28, Mandal, Krishna District. ^■ 4. Loya Bala Venkata Kutumab^faO, about 65 years, R/o.D.No.6 Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5. Loya Srirama Krishna Prasad, years, R/o.D.No.8-67/f, , R2 is not necessary W/o. Late Bhiksham, Hindu aged about 72 Kuderu Village, Pamidimukkala S/o. Late Bhiksham, Hindu aged -34,^Poultry form road, Prasadampadu, S/o. Late Bhiksham, Hindu, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada aged about Krishna 49 District. ' ... 6. Loya Yathiswara Rao, S/o. Late Bhiksham, Hindu, aged about 41 years, , agriculture, R/o.D.No.2-28, Kuderu Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, i Krishna District, (^fnce Respondent No.2 is died, Respondent Nos.3 to 6 brought on record as LR's of R2, as per the Court order dated 29.09.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.11943 of 2016.) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS S are 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 pleasedvto QUASH the Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.227/2016 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnams Krishna District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 fCRLPMP. NO; 13283 OF 20161 Petition under Section :482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of Petitibners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No. 227/2016 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krlshha District pending disposal of the quash petition. praying that in the This Petition coming on for hearing. Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public ProsebutOr of High Court of Andhra Pradesh behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Ashok Kondeti for the Respondent upon perusing the on No. 3 to 6. •i J CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6620 of 2022 Between: 1. Pothana Ramoji, S/o Veera -Raghavaiah, Hindu, Aged 48 years, Agriculture, R/o Guduru, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. 2. M. Naga Prasad, S/o Poomachandra Rao, Hindu, aged 46 years, R/o D.No.9/243, Balaramunipeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. 4 & 7 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Chilakalapudi Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. Loya Biksham @ Bhikshalu (Bied), Loya Biksham @ Bhikshalu (Died) 3. Loya Nageswararamma, VV/o. Late Bhiksham, Hindu, aged about 72 years, agriculture, R/o.D.No.2-28, Kuderu Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District. 4. Loya Bala Venkata Kutumabarao, S/o.Late Bhiksham, Hindu, aged about 65 years, R/o.D.No.6-34, Poultry form road, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5. Loya Srirama Krishna Prasad; S/o.Late Bhiksham, Hindu, aged about 49 years, R/o.D.No.8-67/1, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District 6. Loya Yathiswara Rao, S/o. Late Bhiksham, Hindu, aged about 41 agriculture, R/o.D.No.2-28, Kuderu Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District. (Since Respondent No.2 is died, Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are LR'9 of R2, as per Court order dated 29.09.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.6620 of 2022) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS years. > : • 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 quash the criminal proceedingsHn C.C.No. 227 of 2016 on the file of Court of the II Additional Judicial ipirst Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of Petitioner Nos. 1and2/Accused Nos.4 and 7 in C.C.No.227/2016 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam,' Krishna District pending disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Cfifninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Matada Yuva Siy^ Swamy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Ashok Kondeti, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 to 6. The Court made the following: APHC010223492016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 11943 / 2016 & 6620 / 2022 Criminal Petition No.11943 of 2016: Between: 1.GORIPARTHI RAJ VENKATESWARA RAO YADAV AND ANOTHER, S/0 RAMA RAJU, HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, GUDURU VILLAGE, GUDURU MANUAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2.KATRAGADDA VENKATARANGA RAO, S/0 LATESRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1 .THE STATE OF A P REP PP AND ANOTHER, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAND FOR STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH. 2.LOYA BIKSHAM BHIKSHALU DIED, R2 IS NOT NECESSARY 3.LOYA NAGESWARARAMMA, W/0. LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, VILLAGE, PAMIDIMUKKALA MANUAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.LOYA BALA VENKATA KUTUMABARAO, S/0. LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-34, POULTRY FORM ROAD, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5.LOYA SRIRAMA KRISHNA PRASAD, S/0. LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8-67/1, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6.LOYA YATHISWARA RAO, S/0. LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, VILLAGE, PAMIDIMUKKALA MANUAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. SINCE RESPONDENT N0.2 IS DIED, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR'S OF R2, AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 IN I.A.N0.3 OF 2023 IN CRL.P.NO.11943 OF 2016. R/O.D.NO.2-28, KUDERU R/O.D.NO.2-28, KUDERU ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition No.6620 of 2022: Between: 1.POTHANA RAMOJI, S/0 VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, HINDU, AGED 48 2 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/0 GUDURU, GUDURU MANUAL, ^ KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.M. NAGA PRASAD, S/0 POORNACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.9/243, BALARAMUNIPETA, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHILAKALAPUDI POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2.LOYA BIKSHAM BHIKSHALU DIED, LOYA BIKSHAM @ BHIKSHALU (DIED) 3.LOYA NAGESWARARAMMA, W/0. LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO.2-28, KUDERU VILLAGE, PAMIDIMUKKALAMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.LOYA BALA VENKATA KUTUMABARAO, S/O.LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-34, POULTRY FORM ROAD, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5.LOYA SRIRAMA KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O.LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8-67/1, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 6.LOYA YATHISWARA RAO, S/0. LATE BHIKSHAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO.2-28, KUDERU VILLAGE, PAMIDIMUKKALA MANUAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. SINCE RESPONDENT N0.2 IS DIED, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR'S OF R2, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 IN I.A.N0.3 OF 2023 IN CRL.P.NO.6620 OF 2022 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA 2. MATADA YUVA SIVA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.ASHOK KONDETI The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and 4 & 7 respectively, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam for the offences punishable under Sections 420 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the 2. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, Sri Matada Yuva Siva Swamy, learned counsel for Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 7, Sri Ashok Kondeti, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 7 would 3. submit that, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the matter is of civil nature and the same is given colour of criminal offence. Learned counsel would further submit that, as per the report of the expert, the N.J.Stamps which were sent for comparison were found to be genuine and hence, no offence is made out against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the present case has been registered at the instigation of Kolusu Peda Reddaiah, who was the Ex- M.P., to cause wrongful loss to the Petitioners. The allegations made against the Petitioners are false and baseless. Hence, 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 4 prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. In support ^ of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrapal Singh and others vs. Maharaj Singh and another^ Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and another'*. 4. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 would submit that, though the matter appears to be civil in nature, overt acts have been done with criminal intention. Learned counsel would further submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and genuineness of the said allegations have to be decided during trial. At this stage the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Learned counsel would finally submit that this is not a fit case for quashment. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and 4 & 7 in C.C.No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machillpatnam, are liable to be quashed by jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C? Determination by the Court exercising ^ AIR 1982 SC 1238 '' (2014) 10 see 663 5 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 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 trial court, 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. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint alleging that one Bathina Balaram is the original owner of the subject property i.e., Ac.3.42 cents of wet 8. land in R.S.Nos.347/2, 347/1B, 348/5 and 348/6 situated in Guduru Village and Mandal. One Kolusu Peda Reddaiah purchased the said property orally from Bathina Balaram on 06.01.1995 for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and on 26.08.2004 said Balaram executed a possession agreement of sale in favour of Peda Reddaiah. Subsequently, on 14.09.2005 said Peda Reddaiah transferred the said property in favour of Respondent No.2 for Rs.6,00,000/- under an endorsement on the rear side of the said possessory agreement of sale and had obtained possession of the said property and also obtained Based on the said agreement of sale pattadar passbook in his name. Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.19 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior 6 Civil Judge, Machilipatnam for specific performance against said Bathina Balaram and K.Peda Reddaiah and the same is pending. 9. It IS further alleged that, to grab the said property from Respondent No.2, Accused Nos.1 to 3 having colluded together, and brought a sham and nominal agreement of sale with ante date as 05.05.1999 in favour of Accused Nos.1 and 2 purported to have been executed by Accused No.3, who has no right or title over the said property and Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.214 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Machilipatnam against Accused No.3 and obtained a suit in Civil Judge an ex parte decree and also obtained a regular Registered Sale Deed through the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. Based on the said registered sale deed. Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed E.P.No.27 of 2009 for delivery of the property and when the Court Amin came to the subject property. Respondent No.2 came to know about the existence of the Sale Deed and on enquiry, he was given to understand about execution of alleged Agreement of Sale by Accused No.2 in favour of Accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with Accused Nos.4 to 8. Thereafter, on enquiry. Respondent No.2 came to know that the Stamp Paper Nos.1125 and 1126, which were used by Accused Nos.1 to 3 for creating the agreement of sale in collusion with Accused Nos.4 to 8 are fake stamps. Hence, the complaint. 10. The said complaint was referred to the Police, which a case in Crime No.16 of 2011 was registered as the file of Chilakalapudi Police Station, Krishna District. Police after completion of investigation, filed charge on sheet. 7 which was numbered as C.C.No. 227 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. As seen from the material placed on record, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 11. and 2 have purchased the said property from Accused No.3, under a non- possessory agreement of sale dated 05.05.1999 for a total consideration of 2,17,500/-. Whereas, the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 is that Accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with Accused No.3, having filed a suit in O.S.No.214 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam against Accused No.3, obtained an ex parte decree and also a regular Registered Sale Deed through the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam and Accused Nos.1 to 3 created the agreement of sale in collusion with Accused Nos.4 to 8 with fake stamps. However, as seen from the record, on the application filed by the Police, the learned II Additional Judicial First Class, Magistrate sent the N.J.Stamps, wherein the alleged agreement of sale was drafted, to the India Security Press, Nashik to determine its genuineness and as per the report dated 11.12.2012, the two Rs.50/- India N.J.Stamps were found to be genuine. Further, no appeal has been preferred against the judgment in O.S.No.214 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. Moreover, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 have obtained the Registered Sale Decree through the Court of Senior Civil Judge Machiliapatnam. Since, as per the report of the General Manager, India Security Press, Nashik, the alleged stamps are genuine, it can safely be held that, no offence is made out against either the Petitioners/Accu sed Nos.1 and 8 2 or the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 7, who are the attestors of agreement ^ of sale and the part payment endorsement respectively. In Mohammad Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another®, 12. the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under; "This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of compiainants attempting to give the cioak of a criminai offence to matters which are essentiaiiy and pureiy civii in nature, obviousiy either to appiy pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminai courts shouid ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settiing scores or to pressurise parties to settie civii disputes " In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others® the Hon’ble 13. Supreme Court of India has held as under: "1. Whiie exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingiy and oniy for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a compiaint discioses a criminai offence or not depends upon the nature of facts aiieged therein. Whether essentiai ingredients of criminai offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A compiaint disciosing civii transactions may aiso have a criminai texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentiaiiy of a civii nature is given a cioak of criminai offence, in such a situation, if a civil remedy is avaiiabie and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court shouid not hesitate to quash criminai proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. ” 14. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, the dispute is with regard to the title over the subject ’ 2009 (8) see 751 " 2013 (11) see 673 9 property, and as such, it can be said that the dispute of a civil nature and the same has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the material produced before this Court directly indicate mala fides in initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.i & 2 and 4 & 7 in C.C.No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34 IPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICER 1. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri Narasimha Rad Gudiseva, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Matada Yuva Siva Swamy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Ashok Kondeti, Advocate [OUPC] ^ [OIJT^^^ Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh 6. Three CD Copies GPC (gsg) 15. 16. //TRUE COPY// SE To, HIGH COURT DATED; 18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.11943 of 2016 & 6620 of 2022 ALLOWING THESE CRLPs