IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i'-. >V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4967 OF 2022 Between: 1. Gidda Ananthalakshmi 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 Road, Ravulapalem-533238, Konaseema District (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, Konaseema District (East Godavari District) ...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. Bokka Srinivas, S/o Tata Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o D.No.4-138, Subbaraju Street, Vedireswaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. Road, Ravulapalem ...Respondent/De-facto 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 Charge proceeding in CC.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapet. I.A. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.91/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J Sudheer, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri A V Badra Naga Seshyya, Advocate for the Respondent No.02 The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010326402022 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: 4967/2022 Between: 1.GIDDA ANANTHALAKSHMI SATYAVATHI, W/0 LATE GIDDA SATYANARANAYA, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/0 H.NO.8-473, GIDDA SATYANARAYANA STREET, NEAR KAPULA KALYANA MANDAPAM, VEDIRESWARAM ROAD, RAVULAPALEM- 533238, KONASEEMA DISTRICT (EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 2.GIDDA NAGALAKSHMI DEVI, W/0 P. SRINIVAS, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/0 H.NO.8-473, GIDDA SATYANARAYANA STREET, NEAR KAPULA KALYANA MANDAPAM, VEDIRESWARAM ROAD, RAVULAPALEM-533238, KONASEEMA DISTRICT (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.BOKKA SRINIVAS, S/0 TATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. R/0 D.NO.4-138, SUBBARAJU STREET, VEDIRESWARAM ROAD, RAVULAPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. BUSINESS ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.JSUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent/complalnant(S): 1. A V BADRA NAGA SESHAYYA 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.2 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta for the offences under Sections 341, 447 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri A.V.Badra 2. Naga Seshayya, 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.2 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 No.2 has no locus-standi to lodge the present complaint against the Petitioners as he is not an aggrieved person and the disputed land was not purchased by him. Learned counsel would further submit that. Respondent No.2 along with his henchmen entered into the subject land, which is in the possession of Petitioner No.1, as such, she gave a complaint against them which was registered as a case in Crime No.234 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 447, 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC. As a counterblast to the for short ‘Cr.P.C’ ‘ for short‘IPC’ said case, the present complaint has been lodged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the deceased husband of Petitioner No.1. Learned counsel would submit that the allegation that the Petitioners herein, who are women and the deceased Accused No.1, who was an old man, have restrained Respondent No.2 and also threatened with dire consequences, is far from reality. Learned counsel would further submit that the present dispute is purely of civil nature and the same is given colour of It is submitted that, the allegations levelled against the criminal offence. 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 No.2 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 4. dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 5. learned counsel for Respondent No.2. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 6. 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 lodged the present complaint against the Petitioners alleging that, his brother-in-law namely Pecheti Srinivas had purchased the 7. land of an extent of 387.46 square yards in Rs.Nos.306/3 and 306/4 at Vedhureswaram Road and requested him to lookafter the said property, as he was residing at Chhattisgarh. Whenever Respondent No.2 went to the said property. Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to create nuisance and problems. That being so, on 04.08.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., when Respondent No.2 along with others went to the subject land to take coconuts from the trees and to clean the land. Accused Nos.1 to 3 criminally trespassed into the land. wrongfully restrained them, abused in filthy language and also threatened 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 possession and enjoyment of the said property. That being so. Petitioner 8. No 1 had obtained loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from one Nallamilli Veeraraghava 14.02.2011 with him by selling the Reddy and entered into an agreement on said Veeraraghava Reddy towards security and after said property to of the loan amount, Veeraraghava Reddy has to register the said repayment property back to Petitioner No.1. The material further shows that, in view of Petitioner No.1 and Veeraraghava Reddy with regard to the disputes between payment of interest, said Veeraraghava Reddy sold the said property to Picheti Srinivas, who is the brother-in-law of Respondent No.2, under a the one Sale Deed dated 02.04.2015. The material 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 No.2 herein and others, alleging that they have trespassed into Respondent the subject property, which was in possession of Petitioner No.1. As such, as a counterblast to the said case, the present complaint has been lodged by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners herein and the deceased husband of Petitioner No.1. record further shows that, the deceased husband of 9. The material on Petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.12 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Kothapeta against said Nallamilli Veeraraghava Reddy and Picheti Judge Srinivas, who is the subsequent buyer seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed 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 14.02.2011 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 under litigation and about pendency of suit and the status-quo order passed herein. was 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 is neither the owner nor the possessor of the subject property. Admittedly, the order of Status-quo passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.12 of 2020, which was filed by the Petitioner No.1 and her husband, is still in force. 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 341 and 506 IPC do not arise. 11. Admittedly, there are case and counter cases filed against each other. Further, there is a civil dispute pending before the competent Civil Court 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 No.2 has resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioners by inviting the Police to be interfered with 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. 13. even 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 14. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.91 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta for the offences under Sections 341,447 and 506 read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^ (2013)11 see 673 Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta. 2. The Station Flouse Officer, Ravulapalem Police Station, East Godavari District. 3. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothapeta. 4. One CC to Sri. J Sudheer, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. A V Badra Naga Seshyya, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra SD sree HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4967 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION