APHC010451262023 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 HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6748/2023 Between: KOTHAVALLA SYAMALAMMA, W/O. LATE SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.21-9-124, VIJAYA PURAM, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE, BY REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. B SAI SWETHA, W/O.K.GOPINATH, D/O.B.PALIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/ O. CAMPUS OF BALU'S EVER GREEN SCHOOL, LAKSHMINAGAR, NEAR IIT GIRLS HOSTEL, RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATHI. (COMPLAINANT) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. VMR LEGAL The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Revision Petitioner/ Complainant, seeking quashment of the Order dated 25.04.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2022 on the file of the Court of X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, which was preferred against the Order dated 25.07.2022 passed in CFR No.257 of 2021 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. 2. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri B.Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, Respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the husband of the Petitioner namely K.Shanmugam died on 27.08.2016 due to ill-health. The Petitioner succeeded the subject property after the demise of her husband. It is further submitted that, in view of the disputes between the elder son of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, she deserted the elder son of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.67 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati by creating a Will in the name of her minor daughter, alleged to have been executed by the husband of the Petitioner on 26.08.2016. It is further submitted that the complaint filed by the 1 for short 8Cr.P.C9 3 Petitioner in C.F.No.257 of 2021 against Respondent No.2, was dismissed by the learned Magistrate holding that there is no prima facie material to show that the signature of the executants of the alleged Will was forged. The revision preferred by the Petitioner against the said Order was also dismissed confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel would further submit that, the suit in O.S.No.150 of 2020 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 and her daughter in seeking permanent injunction was decreed, holding that the alleged execution of the Will by the deceased husband of the Petitioner in favour of the daughter of Respondent No.2 herein, is not believable. Learned counsel would further submit that the Courts below misconstrued the facts and erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the Petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioner. It is further submitted that, Respondent No.2 was not in India as on the date of alleged Will, as such, the alleged forgery of the Will by Respondent No.2 does not arise. Respondent No.2 herein, based on the said Will, filed a suit in O.S.No.67 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for permanent injunction. Since there are no ingredients to attract the offence of forgery against Respondent No.2, the learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have rightly dismissed the petitions. 4 5. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner. In view of the matrimonial disputes between Respondent No.2 and her husband, she has been living separately with her husband since February, 2017 along with her minor daughter. 6. As seen from the material placed on record, originally the husband of the Petitioner namely K.Shanmugam is the owner of the subject property under a Registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1978 vide Doc.No.752/1978. While so, the husband of the Petitioner died on 27.08.2016. It is alleged against Respondent No.2 that, after the demise of the husband of the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.67 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati seeking permanent injunction by creating a Will in the name of her minor daughter alleged to have been executed by the husband of the Petitioner in a sound and disposing state of mind on 26.08.2016. 7. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, her husband died due to motor neuron disease and due to the said disease, he was not in a position to execute any Will as alleged by Respondent No.2. The material placed on record would disclose that the Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.150 of 2020 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati against Respondent No.2 herein and her minor daughter, seeking permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioner herein, wherein it was observed that, Respondent No.2 herein admitted in her evidence that she was not in India when her father-in-law was in hospital and 5 that she came to India after six months of the demise of her father-in-law. It was also observed that, the discharge summary of the deceased discloses that he was on ventilator on the date of discharge i.e., 26.08.2016 which is the date of execution of the alleged Will. The learned trial Judge opined that, in such circumstances, execution of the alleged Will in favour of the daughter of Respondent No.2 herein creates suspicion. Further, the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2018 was also dismissed on merits on the ground that the execution of the said Will is doubtful. 8. In view of the findings of the learned trial Judges in both the suits and the evidence of Respondent No.2 in O.S.No.150 of 2020 and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that, there is a suspicion over the execution of the said Will, based on which, the Petitioner herein lodged a complaint against Respondent No.2 for forgery and the same has to be proved during full –fledged trial before the trial Court. 9. Law is well-settled that inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 Cr.P.C and as it is a paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court and the High Court can interfere with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order passed by the Courts below. Jurisdiction conferred to the High Court under Section 482 has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In that view, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Orders passed by the learned Revisional Judge as well as the trial Judge suffer from infirmity and illegality. 6 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 25.04.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2022 on the file of the Court of X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati for fresh consideration. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.09.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.6748 of 2023 Dt.25.09.2025 Dinesh