IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2749 OF 9099 Between: Mr. K.J. Reddy. S/o Mr. K. Narayana Reddy Managing Raagamayuri Builders Private Limited D. No. Joharapuram Road, Kurnool City, Kurnool District. Director 46-1, Narayana Nilayam, ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, A.P.. 2. Mr. Anand Rao, S/o, V. Sawari, Age 45 yrs H.No 64- 137 S.Nagappa Street, Kurnool City Kurnool District, A.P.- 518001 High Court of ...Respondent/Complainants Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal the High Court may be pleased to quash of Cr. Petition, No. 46 of 2022, P.S. Ulindakonda, Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh against the petitioner. LA. 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 Cr. No. 46 of 2022, P.S. Ulindakonda, Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh, including arrest of the petitioner, pending investigation and trial. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SYED GHOUSE BASHA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Y Balaji, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following Order: APHC010168632022 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 NO: 2749/2022 Between: MR. K.J. REDDY, S/0 MR. K. NARAYANA REDDY, MANAGING DIRECTOR RAAGAMAYURI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED D. NO. 46- 1, NARAYANA NILAYAM, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, KURNOOL CITY, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF. ANDHRA PRADESH PROSECUTOR, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2.MR ANAND RAO, S/0. V. SAWARI, AGE 45 YRS, H.NO 64-137 S.NAGAPPA STREET, KURNOOL CITY KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P.- 518001 REP BY PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SYEDGHOUSE BASHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.Y BALAJI The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.46 of 2022 of Ulindakonda Police Station, Kurnool for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 468, 471 and 506 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 ^ % ^ read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code^ and Section 3 (1) (f) (g) (r) (s) of SCs & STs (PoA)Act, 1989^ Heard Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Syed Ghouse Basha learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri R.Venkatesh, a 2. learned counsel representing Sri Y.Balaji, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was not present at the place of the alleged offence at the relevant time and he was at his daughter’s house on that day and CCTV footage is also available to prove the same. It is submitted that the Petitioner being the Managing Director of Raagamayuri Builders Private Limited, had purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 17.02.2021 and has been in possession of the same, whereas. Respondent No.2 has been claiming rights over the said property by virtue of an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 02.03.2016. Learned counsel would further submit that the matter is of civil nature and the same is given the colour of criminal offence. It is submitted that since the Petitioner was not present at the place and time of the alleged incident, the offence under SCSI Act also does not attract against him. Learned counsel would finally submit that the Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and hence, continuation 2 for short “IPC’ ^ for short‘SCST Act’ of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the Petitioner has involved in several offences. Learned counsel would further submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioner to prima facie attract the offences alleged against him. There is a verifiable material record which requires investigation at full length of trial. This is not a fit for quashment. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that four other crimes were also registered against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that there is verifiable material which has to be decided during trial. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. As can be seen from the record, the case of Respondent No.2, in brief, is as follows: 4. on case 5. 6. Respondent No.2 had purchased the land in Sy.No.652 to an extent of Ac.3.40 cents and in Sy.No.653 to an extent of Ac.4.88 cents for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,20,360/- from one Shaik Aashabee and her son Shaik Abdulla under an unregistered Possessory Agreement of Sale dated 02.03.2016 and has been in possession of the said property. Subsequently, the vendor of Respondent No.2 died. As such, on 02.03.2022 at about 10.30 a.m., when Respondent No.2 went to his land with a view to give the same on _ . lease, Petitioner/Accused No.1 along with other Accused came to the land and stated that they had purchased the said land. On that, Respondent No.2 questioned them as to how the said land was purchased by them in the year 2021 when the original owner died in the year 2018. Respondent No.2 had also shown his documents to the Accused. Then the Accused abused him in filthy language. Accused No.2 also abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and also threatened with dire consequences. As such. Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint. 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 court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its 7. 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. In the instant case. Respondent No.2 has been claiming right over the 8. subject property under a Possessory Agreement of Sale dated 02.03.2016 said to have been executed by the owner of the said property Shaik Aashabee and her son Shaik Abdulla and the same was not registered. Subsequently, in the year 2018 the vendor of Respondent No.2 died. Whereas, 5 Petitioner/Accused No.1 has been claiming right and possession over the said property under a Registered Sale Deed-dated 17.02.2021 alleged to have been executed by the vendor of Respondent No.2 i.e., Shaik Aashabee. In such circumstances, the execution of the above said documents by the same vendor in favour of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner/Accused No.1 is the disputed fact which has to be decided during investigation at full length of trial. In view of the cloud over the title and possession of the subject property between the parties, the matter cannot be decided at this stage. 9. Further, it is the contention of the Petitioner that he was not present at the relevant dated and time at the place of offence and he was at his daughter’s house and CCTV footage is also available to prove the said fact. It is further contended that, in the absence of the Petitioner at that time, the alleged abuse against Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste does not arise and the offence under SCSI Act does not attract against the Petitioner. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and others'* 10. Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial court issuing summons to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses prime facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein \ “ (2019) 14 see 350 6 appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.” In view of the above judgment, the contention of the learned counsel for 11. the Petitioner that, since the matter is of civil nature, criminal proceedings have to be quashed, is not tenable as there are specific allegations against the Petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 420, 447, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 IPC. However, the offence under Section 3 (1) (f) (g) (r) (s) of SCSI Act does not attract against the Petitioner, since he was at her daughter’s house on the relevant date and time and CCTV footage is also available to that effect. However, the evaluation of the merits of the allegations made on either side cannot be resorted to at this stage. It is not open to the Court to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. As such, the matter requires investigation / trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. 12. In result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. The Police are directed to proceed with the investigation forthwith. The Petitioner is at liberty to raise his contentions in his defence before the concerned trial Court. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT R^STRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulindakonda Police Station. 2. One CC to Sri. Syed Ghouse Basha Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Y Balaji, Advocate.[OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 4. 4. Three CD Copies vna i > 'S' i 5 HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2749 of 2022 1 06 SEP 2025 a DISPOSING OF THE CRIMIAL PETITION