APHC010512152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10067/2025 Between: 1. CHIRAMANA MADHAVA REDDY, S/O VENKATA SESHA REDDY,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 27-4- 521,STEEL FACTORY ROAD, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE CITY ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BYTHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. 2. UPPALA SURESH, S/O RATNAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.RESIDING AT D.NO. 4-B, DWARAKA RESIDENCY, DARAGAMITTA,NELLORE CITY. 3. GODUSU MATHEWS ELISHA, S/O ELISHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.RESIDING AT D.NO. 26-14-271, KONDAYAPALEM, NELLORE CITY. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10067/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 8Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 8BNSS9) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.2786 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Magistrate of 1st Class, Nellore for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri G.Venu Madhav Chowdary, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioner. He would further submit that there are no ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. As per the averments of the complaint, the complainant after verifying the documents and confirming the petitioner is the absolute owner, purchased the said property. There is no ingredient to attract the offence under Section 420 of IPC. He finally prays for quashment of the case. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the petition stating that the police, after due investigation filed charge 3 sheet against the petitioners. The allegations made against the petitioner is that the petitioner cheated the complainant by making him to believe that he is the original owner of the subject land and took an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- from the wife of the complainant. There are specific allegations made against the petitioner, hence, it is not a fit case for quashment. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays of dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are specific allegations made against the petitioners. The contentions raised by the petitioner are a matter of defence. When there is verifiable material on record, this Court cannot exercise its discretion for quashment of such case. This matter requires a detailed enquiry before the Trial Court. In that view, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.09.2025 UPS 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10067/2025 Dated.25.09.2025 UPS 144