APHC010063602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2060/2022 Between: 1. KADIYALA SIMHACVHALAM @ VIJAY KUMAR, S/O. APPA RAO (LATE), R/O. 81-42-7, VIJAYA CARS, JN RD, OPP. AKC COLLEGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM - 533103 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PRAKASH NAGAR, URBAN POLICE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP HIGH COURT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking to quash the summons issued by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District in relation to the case in Crime No.434 of 2021 on the file of Prakash Nagar Police Station, 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Rajamahendravaram, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code2. 2. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent/State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the learned trial Court had issued the impugned summons without proper adjudication of the matter and that the documents directed to be produced are prima facie incriminatory and will become fatal to the case of the Petitioner during trial. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned trial Judge without having any power and without assigning any reason had issued the impugned summons. Learned counsel would further submit that, during the pendency of the interim suspension of the issuance of impugned summons, granted by this Court on 21.12.2021 in W.P.No.28470 of 2021, the learned trial Judge, on the application made by the Investigating Officer, issued summons, which is bad under law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no tenable grounds to quash the summons issued by the learned trial Judge in connection with Crime No.434 of 2021 of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the summons issued to the Petitioner/Accused No.1 by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District in relation to the case in Crime No.434 of 2021 on the file of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram? Determination by the Court 6. A bare 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 of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning 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. 7. The present case has been registered against the Petitioner herein based on the complaint lodged by one Gurala Venkata Krishna Rao, alleging that, the brother of the Complainant namely Nayudu Veera Venkata Satya Prathap, who has been staying in America since 1994, had purchased land of an extent of 311.11 square yards in Plot No.B-2 situated at A.K.C.College, 4 Prakash Nagar, Rajamahendravaram vide Doc.No.3194/94 and executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the Complainant to look after the said property. That being so, the Petitioner leased out the said property to one Baji for running a chicken shop. The Complainant came to know that the Petitioner got created the sale deed dated 23.10.2000 as if the same was executed by said Nayudu Veera Venkata Satya Prathap in his favour by receiving the sale consideration of Rs.12,44,000/-. By the date of alleged transaction, said Satya Prathap was not in India. In that connection, on 07.10.2021 at about 4.00 p.m., when the Complainant along with his friends went to his land, the Petitioner along with others, illegally trespassed into his land, abused him in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. As such, the present case has been registered against the Petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 8. During investigation in the above crime, the Petitioner received a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C dated 17.10.2021 from the Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram directing him to produce the document pertaining to the alleged sale transaction between him and the said Satya Pratap Naidu, for which, he gave a reply dated 23.10.2021 submitting that he would file the said documents before the Civil Court and sought to conduct investigation in Crime No.433 of 2021 which was registered based on the complaint lodged by the Petitioner herein against the Complainant herein. The Petitioner herein also filed W.P.No.28470 of 2021 5 before this Court to declare the action of the Respondents therein in issuing the notice dated 17.10.2021 under Section 91 Cr.P.C as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently to quash the said notice, wherein, on 21.12.2021 this Court was pleased to grant interim suspension of the impugned notice and the same was extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer had filed a memo dated 27.10.2021 before learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram praying to issue summons to the Accused for furnishing the alleged forged document. The learned trial Judge had issued summons to the Petitioner herein directing him to produce the Agreement of Sale dated 22.03.1998 before the Court. 9. A bare perusal of the Order dated 01.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.28470 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner herein, would clearly show that, a Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the impugned notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C to the Petitioner. For ready reference, the Order in the above writ petition is extracted hereunder: “25) Before parting with the case, it is made clear that the Court is not expressing anything on the merits of the case. As held by the Madras High Court in the case of K.Senthamarai3, this order will not preclude the Investigating Agency to continue with the investigation by collecting the material from other sources through the suitable methods permissible under law as Investigating Agency deems fit to find out the truth in the accusation made by the complainant. The allegation against the accused is that he has fabricated the sale agreement with the forged signature of the owner of the land. While giving reply to the notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the accused did not even say in specific terms that it is a genuine document or that the signature of the owner of the land was not forged on it. He simply parried the said material question. It would have a bearing on the accusation made against him. Therefore, the 6 Investigating Officer is at liberty to secure evidence in this regard by adopting the methods permissible under law. 26) Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, who is an accused in a crime, is quashed. No costs.” 10. In view of above said Order, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that issuance summons by the learned trial Judge is not tenable and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the summons issued to the Petitioner by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District in relation to the case in Crime No.434 of 2021 on the file of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:23.01.2025 Dinesh 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2060 of 2022 Dt.23.01.2025 Dinesh