IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7234 OF 2022 Between: 1. Polavarapu Suresh, S/o. Radha Krishna, 34 years, Kamma, D.No. 12- 40, Penamaluru, Krishna District. 2. Challa Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Anjaneyulu, 40 years, Vadderaulu, 3'^'^ line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur, Guntur distirct. 3. Shaik Mastan Vali @ Vali, S/o. John Saheb, 42 years, Muslim, D.No. 4- 6-259, 2nd lane, Koretipadu, Guntur, Guntur distirct. 4. Mallela Jamalaiah, S/o. Venkata Basavaiah, 32 years, Gowda, D.No. 8- 132, Gowda Bazar, Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna Distirct. ...PETITIONERs/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Arparavati, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Bathula Sarath Kumar, S/o. Kondala Rao, 29 years, Kapu, D.No., 47-8- 12, Near China Rice Mill, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in GC No. 7325 of 2018 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for the offences punishable Under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC. / ■A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No. 7325 of 2018 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for the offences punishable Under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 12.07.2023 in CrI.P. No 7234/2022 in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Modugu Venu Gopal, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following order: f, / APHC010481432022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7234/2022 Between: 1.POLAVARAPU SURESH, S/0. RADHA KRISHNA, 34 YEARS, KAMMA, D.NO. 12-40, PENAMALURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.CHALLA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.ANJANEYULU, 40 YEARS, VADDERAULU, LINE, LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTIRCT. 3.SHAIK MASTAN VALI @ VALI, S/O. JOHN SAHEB, 42 YEARS, MUSLIM, / D.NO. 4-6-259, 2ND LANE, KORETIPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTIRCT. 4.MALLELA JAMALAIAH, S/O. VENKATA BASAVAIAH, 32 YEARS, GOWDA, D.NO. 8-132, GOWDA BAZAR, NUNNA VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTIRCT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.BATHULA SARATH KUMAR, S/O. KONDALA RAO, 29 YEARS, KAPU, D.NO. 47-8-12, NEAR CHINA RICE MILL, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA 7 DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.MODUGUVENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. 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 to 4 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.7325 of 2018 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard Sri Modugu Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. Though notice was sent, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are no specific allegations made against the Petitioners to attract the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the matter is purely of civil nature and the same is given the colour of criminal offence. It is submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences do not attract against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would finally submit that, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided during trial. It is submitted that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against the 5. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 which was registered as a case in Crime No.221 of 2013 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada for the / offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC alleging that, with a view to purchase a site, when Respondent No.2 approached Petitioner/Accu sed No.4, who is a real estate broker, and he showed him 340 square yards of site in Chinmaya Nagar Ramavarappadu and the same belongs to Petitioner/Accused No.1. Respondent No.2 agreed to purchase the said site at Rs.9,500/- per square yard. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 got registered the said land in the name of Respondent No.2. On the date of registration, at the Registrar Office, when Respondent No.2 requested them to handover the link document to him, they did not do That being so, one V.Surya Prakasarao is claiming that, he is the owner of the subject property and he so. has the original document and that the Petitioners sold the said property by forging his signatures, against Respondent No.2 herein. At this stage it is relevant to extract Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, which read as follows: Said Surya Prakasarao also lodged a complaint 6. V v “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description fora term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or eiectronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has 4 / t reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]. In the backdrop of the legal positions referred to supra, as seen from the contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet, there are specific allegations levelled against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided during trial before the trial Court. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that view, when there is a verifiable material against the Petitioners, this Court is of the view that, it is not a fit case for quashment and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. > 99 7. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ SECTION OFFICER J 1. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada Krishna District 2. One CC to Sri Modugu Venu Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] ^ Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4. Three CD Copies / To GPC RAM / HIGH COURT DATED: 10/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7234 of 2022 DISMISSING THIS CRLP