APHC010079662023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1290/2023 Between: V.lakshman Goud and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SARALA NEELAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.934 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, for the alleged offences under Sections 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. It is submitted that the 3rd petitioner has filed Crime No.86 of 2022 on the file of Muchumarri Police Station, Nandyal District, for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC against the 2nd respondent. As a counterblast a private complaint was filed by the 3rd petitioner against the 2nd respondent and her husband. The 3rd petitioner is the mother-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent and her husband were consistently pressurizing the petitioners for a share in the property, and it is also alleged that the 2nd respondent and her husband were demanding partition of the house, and that the failure to effect partition of the house had led to physical attacks on the 3rd petitioner and her family members. Aggrieved by the said actions of the 2nd respondent and her husband, the 3rd petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, and got the same referred to the police for investigation. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner has filed O.S.No.319 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, against the husband of the 2nd respondent seeking injunction and restraining him from interfering with the possession of the house of the 1st petitioner. The learned Judge had granted injunction vide order dated 09.12.2021. 3 3. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent and her husband are residing separately in the same village. Aggrieved by the complaint filed by the 3rd petitioner, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint as a counterblast, alleging offences under Sections 354, 323, and 506 of IPC. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner is a paralytic patient and requires assistance to move around. However, a false complaint alleging an offence under Section 354 of IPC has been filed against the 1st petitioner. It is also submitted that the allegation of an offence under Section 354 of IPC is not made out against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 4. It is further submitted that the family disputes relating to the property have triggered the 2nd respondent to file a false complaint. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking injunction against the husband of the 2nd respondent. The learned Judge has granted an injunction restraining the 2nd respondent’s husband and his henchmen from interfering with the possession of the 1st petitioner’s house. Unmindful of all this, the 2nd respondent, in connivance with her husband, has resorted to filing a false complaint and has converted the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent into a criminal case. 5. It is submitted that this Court, in the matter of Yannana Subba Rao and 6 others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.P.No.11623 of 20181, dealt with an identical issue wherein civil disputes were pending between the parties therein, and the said disputes were converted into a criminal case. Such an attempt was found fault with by this Court. 1 2024 Supreme (Online) (AP) 3158 4 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on written instructions, submits that the police have conducted an investigation in Crime No.87 of 2022 and filed a charge sheet. It is also submitted that the police have recorded the statements of three independent witnesses who speak to the facts of the incident. It is further submitted that the allegations under Section 354 of IPC were not found to be made out against the 3rd petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 8. Perused the record. 9. Except for the statement of the 2nd respondent and her husband regarding the alleged incident which occurred on 09.09.2022 at 09:00 AM, when the 1st petitioner allegedly hugged the 2nd respondent, and the moment the 2nd respondent raised a hue and cry, her husband came to her rescue and separated the 2nd respondent from the 1st petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioners are said to have physically assaulted the 2nd respondent. The listed witnesses Nos. 3, 4, and 5 would speak for the statement regarding the alleged physical assault on the 2nd respondent. The allegation under Section 354 of IPC against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is not found in the entire record. Insofar as the allegation under Section 354 of IPC against the 1st petitioner is concerned, the same is an issue which has to be dealt with before the trial court as it is a question of fact, and the witnesses who speak on the said incident ought to be adduce evidence in the trial court. 5 10. Considering these issues, this Court is of the considered view that the case against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed insofar as the application of Section 354 of IPC is concerned. It is left open for the trial court to consider the case against the 1st petitioner for the offence charged, and insofar as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the trial court is to consider the charges against the petitioners under Section 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC only. 12. With these observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed off. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 21.04.2025 PNS