1 Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 22-09-2026 Date of uploading : 22-09-2026 APHC010350932020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5656 OF 2020 Between: 1. S. MEERAJ AHAMMED,, S/O S. RASOOL AGED 57 YEARS, R/O H.NO.76/97/163/8, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, ULACHALA ROAD, NEAR BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2. S. MAHAMMED ABDULLA,, S/O S. MEERAJ AHAMMED, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O H.NO.76/97/163/8, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, ULACHALA ROAD, NEAR BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. S. MAHAMMED ABDUL SAMAD,, SI() S. RASOOL AGED 26 YEARS, R/O H.NO.76/97/ 163/8, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, ULACHALA ROAD, NEAR BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. THOUGH THE SHO, TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 2. DR G ABDUL KHALIQ, S/O MD. IBRAHIM, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO.43/253/J.19, SECOND FLOOR, SANKAL BAGH, N.R. PETA, KURNOOL TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...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 quash the proceedings in CC.No.1159 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 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 may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Proceedings in C.C.No. 159/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/accused in C.C.No. 159/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION No.5656 OF 2020 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1159 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, arising out of Crime No.242 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent No.2/ de facto complainant lodged a report alleging that on 28.08.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioners criminally trespassed into the land situated in Sy.Nos.235/2K, 235/2J and 237/2 at Mamidalapadu Village, Kurnool, committed mischief, removed survey stones, demolished the basement and attempted to grab the property belonging to the de facto complainant and other plot owners. It was further alleged that accused No.1 declared himself to be the absolute owner of the entire property on the strength of a fake pattadar passbook. On the basis of the said report, the above crime was registered and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was laid. 3. The petitioners contend that they are the original owners of the land situated in Sy.Nos.235/2K, 235/2J and 235/2 and that there is no such Nizam Colony in the subject lands. According to them, the dispute is purely civil in nature and several civil proceedings are already pending between the parties. It is also contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to harass them and to lay a claim over their property. 4 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 Petitioner No.2 has further stated that he was working as an Assistant Professor at Kottayam Institute of Pharmacy and has relied upon a certificate issued by the said institution. 4. Heard Sri T. Nikilesh, learned counsel representing Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served, respondent No.2/de facto complainant remained absent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the dispute relates to title and possession of immovable property and is essentially civil in nature. It is submitted that civil suits are pending between the parties and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others1. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the material collected during investigation discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. It is contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed after completion of investigation and that the learned Trial Court has also examined the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The matter is at the stage of trial and the disputed questions raised by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. A perusal of the record shows that, on the report of respondent No.2, Crime No.242 of 2016 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. After completion of 1 2007 (59) AIC 30 5 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet and the same was taken cognizance of as C.C.No.1159 of 2017. The prosecution case, as reflected from the charge-sheet, is that accused No.1 and his partners purchased an extent of 2.12 acres in Sy.No.235/2K under a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1985 and an extent of 1.06 acres in Sy.No.235/2J under a registered sale deed dated 05.11.1985, thereafter started a venture in the name and style of Nizam Colony, laid out plots and sold the same to the de facto complainant and other purchasers through one Sri Abdul Gafoor. 8. The charge-sheet further alleges that the de facto complainant and other listed witnesses had been in possession and enjoyment of the respective plots for several years and that, with an intention to interfere with their possession, the petitioners allegedly created false and bogus pattadar passbooks and, on 28.08.2016, committed criminal trespass and mischief. The charge-sheet thus contains specific allegations which, if taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. Whether the documents relied upon by either side are genuine, whether the petitioners have title to the property, and who is entitled to possession are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. 9. It is also not in dispute that civil litigation has been instituted between the parties. The record refers to O.S.No.178 of 1990 filed by accused No.1 seeking cancellation of the alleged General Power of Attorney, which was dismissed; O.S.No.286 of 2009 filed by certain purchasers seeking permanent injunction in respect of part of the subject property; and O.S.No.40 of 2016 filed by the de facto complainant and other persons 6 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 against accused No.1 and others seeking permanent injunction, which is stated to be pending before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 10. The mere existence or pendency of civil proceedings does not, by itself, furnish a ground to quash criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. A dispute may have civil consequences and, at the same time, give rise to criminal liability if the ingredients of a criminal offence are independently made out. The question before this Court is not to determine the title to the subject property or the correctness of the rival claims, but only to examine whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 11. In the present case, the allegations are not confined merely to a dispute regarding title. The prosecution specifically alleges that the petitioners fabricated pattadar passbooks, interfered with the possession of the de facto complainant and other purchasers, trespassed into the property and caused damage to the structures and survey stones. These allegations, coupled with the material collected during investigation, cannot be said to be inherently improbable or incapable of constituting the offences alleged. The defence of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property and that the allegations are false involves disputed questions of fact which have to be tested by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by both sides. 12. The contention of petitioner No.2 is that he was on duty on 23.09.2016 also does not advance the case of the petitioners, since the alleged incident, according to the prosecution, occurred on 28.08.2016. Therefore, the certificate relied upon by petitioner No.2 does not, at this 7 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 stage, completely dislodge the prosecution case. Further, the liability of each accused has to be considered on the basis of the evidence available on record and the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. 13. In this regard, it is to be noted that it is well settled that for the purpose of exercising power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se and it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It is also well settled that if the allegations made in the FIR, taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offense, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should be quashed. Further, the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases and that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bajanlal and Others.2 Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated seven cardinal principles and they are reproduced as follows: “1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2 1992 Supplement 1 SCC 335 8 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is instituted, to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Inder Mohan Goswami and another (supra) lays down the well-settled principles governing the exercise of inherent powers. However, the said principles have to be applied to the facts of each case. In the present case, the allegations in the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, prima facie constitute the offences alleged and the matter has already proceeded 9 SUN, J Crlp_5656_2020 to the stage of trial. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to the proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the stage of the proceedings and the existence of disputed questions relating to title, possession and the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all their factual and legal contentions before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Date:22.09.2026 Pbs/ knl