APHC010472592023 0^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI S' o: P TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY \o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No 7094 nf 2023 Between; K.B.Kodanda Rami Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, aged 52 years, H.No. 10/256, Mallari Street, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool District working as Head Constable-2667 in Mantralayam P.S. Kurnool District. and ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. G. Fathima, W/o. G. Badesaheb, Age 51 Soganur Road, Yemmignur Town, Kurnool District A.P. years, H.No.9/1357/A, ...Respondents 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 Charges against the petitioner offences 506,509 IPC Sheet in C.C.No.262/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool District. under the lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petitiqn 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 to stay of all further proceedings including the \^ppearance of the petitioner/accused I in C.C.No.262/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Yemmiganur for the offences under section 506 and 509 I.P.C. against the petitioner pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner "4“ : Sri B Suryanarayana Counsel for Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following order: A APHC010472592023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7094/2023 Between: l.K.B.KODANDA RAMI REDDY, S/0. SANJEEVA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, H.NO. 10/256, MALLARI STREET, YEMMIGANUR TOWN KURNOOL DISTRICT AND WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE-2667 IN MANTRALAYAM P.S. KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND l.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.G.FATHIMA, W/O.G.BADESAHEB, AGE-52 YRS, H.N0.9/1357/A,S0GANUR ROAD, YEMMIGNUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to It is therefore prayed that the Honourable Court may be quash the Charges against the petitioner under the offences 506,509 IPC Sheet in C.C.No. 262/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool district order or orders may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: l.B SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.) for the following relief: 2 m 0 " ... quash the Charges against the petitioner under the offences 506,509 IPC Sheet in C.C.No. 262/2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool district order or orders may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case " 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State. Despite service of notice, none represented for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the dispute between the parties relates to maintenance of Darga Place situated in Survey No.408/1 to an extent of Ac.5.89 cents. As per revenue records, this land stood in the name of one T.V.Venkatesh and that the wife of this Petitioner is the trustee of Darga. Learned counsel would submit that on 04.03.2023, respondent No.2 gave a complaint against the Petitioner herein on the allegation that Petitioner came to the Darga where respondent No.2 is selling coconuts abused her in filthy language and removed the coconuts from the spot, insulted her modesty by pushing her down. Allegedly, petitioner threatened her husband, who is a Mujavar to Badesab Darga from his ancestors with dire consequences that he would kill him in the premises. Basing on the complaint, a case in Crime No.35 of 2023 is registered by Yemmiganur Town Police Station, Kurnool District against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel would submit that the ingredients of the offences lodged against the Petitioner would not attract to the facts of the present case and that all the allegations are fabricated for the purpose of filing of this case. Learned counsel would submit that regarding maintenance of Badesaheb Darge there is a 3 dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and her family members. The motive for the incident is that the family members and respondent No.2 resisted petitioner to perform Urusu held on 01.03.2023 to 03.03.2023. The trust is being maintained by the registered trust which registered as Sri Varasiddi Padma Sadguru Badesaheb Thata Darga trust which is run by the wife of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner is innocent of the offence and he was falsely implicated in this 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Stated opposed the criminal Petition and would submit that there civil disputes pending between the parties and that there are case and counter cases filed by each parties against one another viz., Crime No. 167 of 2022 and 210 of 2022 and 38 of 2023 and hence, submits that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. 5. A 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 ofjustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning I as a 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. was case. are 4 6. Considering the submissions, as can be seen from the material on record, there are civil disputes pending between the parties regarding the land of the Darga and regarding performance of the duties in the Darga. Further, as submitted by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are series of criminal cases pending between the parties. 7. There are specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner, which have to be decided during investigation, based on the omnibus allegations and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided during investigation. Therefore, at this juncture quashing of the proceedings against the Petitioner is not correct. These are all the matters relating to appreciation of evidence, which is the task of the investigation and trial. At this stage, there absolutely no valid legal grounds emanating from the record are warranting interference of this Court in exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the criminal petition lacks merit and the dismissed. same is liable to be 8. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REG STRAR p/ SECTION OFFICER 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool District. 2. The Station House Officer, Yemmiganur Town Police District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi[OUT] 4. One CC to Sri B Suryanarayana, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To Station, Kurnool TK sree HIGH COURT DATE 0:29/07/2025 ORDER CRLP No.7094 of 2023 of I O f OCT 2125 . Current Seciion ^ %;^g^SPATCV\^$ " % m DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION