IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8247 OF 2022 Between: 1. Gidda Anantha Lakshmi Satyavathi, W/o Late Gidda Satyanaranaya, aged 65 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.8-473, Gidda Satyanarayana Street, Near Kapula Kalyana Mandapam, Vedireswaram Ravulapalem-533238, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema (East Godavari) District. 2. Gidda Nagalakshmi Devi, W/o P. Srinivas, Aged 42 years, Occ; Advocate, R/o H.No.8-473, Gidda Satyanarayana Street, Near Kapula Kalyana Mandapam, Vedireswaram Road, Ravulapalem-533238, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema (East Godavari) District. Road, ...Petitioners AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi, For the Station House Officer, Ravulapalem Police Station. ... Respondent/Respondent 2. Moturi Suryaprakasarao, S/o Satyam, Aged 62 years, Occ. Carpenter, R/o D.No.8-464, Ravulapalem Village & Mandal, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema (East Godavari) District. 3. Sadhanala Satyanarayana, S / Cultivation, R/o D.No. 1-136, Vedireswaram Village Ambedkar Konaseema (East Godavari) District. 4. Siddireddy Srinivasarao, S/o Subbarao, Aged 52 R/o D.No.1-210, Ravulapalem Village & Mandal Konaseema (East Godavari) District. 5. Sadhanala Nagamani, W/o Satyanarayana Cultivation, R/o D.No. 1-136, Vedireswaram Village R. Ambedkar Konaseema (East Godavari) District 0 Suryanarayana, Aged 51 years, Occ. & Mandal, Dr. B. R. years, Occ. Business, , Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Aged 42 years, Occ. and Mandal, Dr. B. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainants Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the of Criminal Petition, consequential charge sheet on the file of the Hon'ble Court of Judicial First circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds the High Court may be pleased to quash the filed in CC.No. 100/2022 Class Magistrate, Kothapet. (Prayer is amended as per Court order dated 01.08.2024 in Crl.P.No.8247 of 2022) I.A. NO: 1 OF 7099 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds the High Court may be pleased to praying that in the of Criminal Petition, grant stay of all further proceedings the petitioners/accused No.1 including appearance of and 2 in First Class CC.No. 100/2022 Magistrate, Kothapet. on the file of the Hon'ble Court of Judicial This Petition Memorandum of Grounds of coming on for hearing. Criminal Petition and upon perusing the upon hearing the % arguments of Sri J Sudheer, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P Hema Chandra, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2,3,4 & 5. The Court made the following order: % APHC010556762022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY. THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8247/2022 Between: 1.GIDDA ANANTHA LAKSHMI SATYAVATHI, W/0 LATE GIDDA SATYANARANAYA, AGCD 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/0 H.NO.8-473, GIDDA SATYANARAYANA STREET, NEAR KAPULA KALYANA MANDAPAM, VEDIRESWARAM ROAD, RAVULAPALEM- 533238, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (EAST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. 2.GIDDA NAGALAKSHMI DEVI,, W/0 P. SRINIVAS, AGED 42 YEARS, OM ADVOCATE, R/0 H.NO.8-473, GIDDA SATYANARAYANA STREET, NEAR KAPULA KALYANA MANDAPAM, VEDIRESWARAM ROAD. RAVULAPALEM-533238, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (EAST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI, FOR THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAVULAPALEM POLICE STATION. 2.MOTURI SURYAPRAKASARAO, S/0 SATYAM, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC. CARPENTER, R/0 D.N0.8 16(1, RAVULAPALEM VILLAGE 85 MANDAL, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (EAST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. 3.SADHANALA SATYANARAYANA, S / O SURYANARAYANA, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/0 D.NO.1-136, VEDIRESWARAM VILLAGE 85 MANDAL, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (EAST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. 4.SIDDIREDDY SRINIVASARAO, S/0 SUBBARAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/0 D.NO.1-210, RAVULAPALEM VILLAGE 85 MANDAL, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (EAST GODAVARI) DISTRICT. 5.SADHANALA NAGAMANI, W/0 SATYANARAYANA, AGED 42 YEARS. OCC. CULTIVATION, R/0 D.NO.1-136, VEDIRESWARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (EAST GODAVARI) DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.J. SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.P. HEMACHANDRA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973\ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta for the offences under Sections 447, 290 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860l Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri 2. P.Hemachandra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioner 3. No. 1/Accused No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property having purchased the same from one Y.Satya Sekhar Rao under a Registered Sale Deed dated 09.05.1985. It is submitted that. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have trespassed into the subject land on 08.12.2021, created nuisance and attacked Petitioner No.1 and based on the complaint lodged by Petitioner No.1, a case in Crime No.436 of 2021 was registered against for short ‘Cr.P.C’ - for short‘IPC’ Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein for the offences under Sections 354, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC. As a counterblast to the said case, Respondent Nos.2 to 5 lodged the present complaint against Petitioner No.1 and her married daughter i.e.. Petitioner No.2, who was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, with false and untenable allegations. Learned counsel would further submit that the present dispute is purely of civil nature and the same is given colour of criminal offence. It is submitted that, the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus and no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners in the above case. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the offences alleged. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial and at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. This is not a fit case for quashment. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 4. 5. learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 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 6. 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 compeHing reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 lodged the present complaint against the 7. Petitioners alleging that, they have purchased the subject property i.e., the land of an extent of 387.46 square yards in Sy.Nos.306/3 and 306/4 from one Pecheti Srinivas under a Registered Sale Deed dated 07.12.2020 and they have been in possession of the said land. While so, on 06.12.2021 at about 4.00 p.m., while they were cleaning the said land. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein have criminally trespassed into the said land, abused them in filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would clearly show that. Petitioner No.1 had purchased the subject property from one Y.Satya Sekhar Rao under a Registered Sale Deed dated 09.05.1985 and has been in 8. possession and enjoyment of the said property. That being so. Petitioner No.1 had obtained loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from one Nallamilli Veeraraghava Reddy and entered into an agreement on 14.02.2011 with him by selling the said property to said Veeraraghava Reddy towards security and after repayment of the loan amount, Veeraraghava Reddy has to register the said % property back to Petitioner No.1. The material further shows that, in view of the disputes between Petitioner No.1 and Veeraraghava Reddy with regard to the payment of interest, said Veeraraghava Reddy sold the said property to The material one Picheti Srinivas under a Sale Deed dated 02.04.2015. further shows that, Petitioner No.1 herein lodged a complaint dated 04.08.2017 in Crime No.234 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 447, 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC against one Bokka Srinivas, who is the brother-in- law of Picheti Srinivas alleging that he along with his henchmen trespassed into the subject property, which was in possession of Petitioner No.1. In turn, said Bokka Srinivas gave a complaint against the Petitioners herein and the deceased husband of Petitioner No.1, alleging that they have committed the offences under Sections 341, 447 and 506 read with 34 IPC which was registered as a case in Crime No.233 of 2017, dated 04.08.2017. The material on record further shows that, the deceased husband of Petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.12 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta against said Nallamilli Veeraraghava Reddy and Picheti Srinivas, who is the subsequent buyer seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 14.02.2011 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession, wherein, the learned trial Judge had issued the order of status-quo. A paper publication dated 17.02.2020 was also issued in Sakshi News Paper by Petitioner No.1 herein and her husband by mentioning the fact that the subject property was under litigation and about pendency of suit and the status-quo order passed 9. 6 herein. Petitioner No.1 herein also got issued a legal notice dated 21.03.2020 to Respondent No.2 herein and the wife of Picheti Srinivas, and also to the concerned Sub-Registrar informing about filing of the above suit as well as the i status-quo order therein. That being so, said Picheti Srinivas sold the subject land to Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein under a Registered Sale Deed dated 07.12.2020 despite the public notice and the legal notice mentioned above. It is not the case of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 that the possession of the 10. said property was delivered to them and the said property is in possession of the Petitioner No.1 herein. Further, the civil suit filed by the Petitioner No.1 and her husband is still pending and the question of possession over the subject property has not been decided. In view of the order of status-quo passed by the Civil Court, the possession over the subject property is with Petitioner No.1 only. When Petitioner No.1 is in possession of the subject property, the question of alleged criminal trespass by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to attract the offence under Section 447 IPC, and the consequential offences under Sections 290 and 506 IPC do not arise. Admittedly, there are case and counter cases filed against each other. 11. Further, there is a civil dispute pending before the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.12 of 2020 between the parties with regard to the right and possession over the subject property. Furthermore, the entire dispute revolves around the subject property and there involves the dispute of title and possession over the same. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioners by inviting the Police to be interferedwith 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. “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. ” In view of the above discussion and the judgment referred to supra, 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 and 2 in C.C.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta for the offences under Sections 447, 290 and 506 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. 13. even 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^ (2013)11 see 673 Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Station Flouse Officer, Ravulapalem Police Station, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema (East Godavari) District. 2, One CC to Sri. J Sudheer, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P Hema Chandra, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies SM sree HIGH COURT DATED: 17/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8247 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION